. . . and THIS Edwards supporter is ANGRY . . .

[Krashkopf]

I'm gonna vent . . . so stand back . . .

It is clear that, even within the Democratic Party, there is NO STOMACH for REAL CHANGE. Apparently COSMETIC CHANGE is good enough for some of you!

Instead of supporting a candidate who promised to FIGHT BACK against the Corporatocracy that has been waging a ONE-SIDED class-war against US - the American middle-class - for the past 27 years, more than half of the Democrats in Nevada, today supported the DLC - Republican Lite -candidate, who has taken more campaign contributions FROM Corporate America than ANY OTHER CANDIDATE regardless of party, because, as a women, she represents "CHANGE."

Answer me this HILLARY SUPPORTERS. After taking SO MUCH money from Corporate America, do you REALLY think President H. R. Clinton is going to do ANYTHING to substantially change trade agreements like NAFTA and CAFTA that encourage American Corporations to earn record profits by out-sourcing American jobs to the poorest of third world countries? REALLY?!

And, instead of supporting a candidate who promised to FIGHT BACK against the Republican power elite, almost 45% of the rest of the Democratic caucus goers in Nevada today voted for a man who talks in airy platitudes about "finding common ground" with Republicans and building a "Purple America" because, as a black man, he represents "CHANGE."

And, answer me this OBAMA SUPPORTERS. Do you REALLY think your new Republican buddies are going to reach across to President Obama, and try to find common ground with him, when Democrats try to implement a UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE PLAN?! REALLY??!!

WEll, you folks "duke it" from here, and choose the candidate who LOOKS the most like change. Come November, those of us who WANTED REAL, SUBSTANTIVE CHANGE, will hold our collective nose and vote for him, or her, just like we always do.

GRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR! I HATE the DLC!!!

[Proud2BAmurkin]

1. Logically this should have been a two man race, Clinton and Edwards nt

[Bluerthanblue]

25. two MAN race?

Is your aim to offend and divide everyone?

:shrug:

[rch35]

161. its an expression, not calling hillary a man

people, you dont need to get offended over everything.


its like getting pissed over someone saying "rule of thumb" because of the way that phrase originated (with a man legally being able to beat his wife as long as the stick was no wider than his thumb).

its an expression, not an insult.

[JDPriestly]

184. Our language is sexist. That doesn't mean the person using

it is sexist.

[VotesForWomen]

235. no, just ignorant and insensitive. btw, "two-person race" is quite easy to say. nt

[rch35]

255. wow, you're right

it just rolls off the tongue

but i find that saving that syllable and saying two-man race really just makes me feel warm and good inside, by pissing off overly sensitive, politically correct, self-righteous blowhards. The reason couldn't possibly be that it is just a commonly used expression.

I'm not speaking about you, just so you know, just people in general.

May the best man win.

Ooooh, this blatant sexism feeds me.

[Skittles]

405. you're a real jerk / nt

[rch35]

411. No, I just play one on the internet. nt

[rch35]

256. wow, you're right

it just rolls off the tongue

but i find that saving that syllable and saying two-man race really just makes me feel warm and good inside, by pissing off overly sensitive, politically correct, self-righteous blowhards. The reason couldn't possibly be that it is just a commonly used expression.

I'm not speaking about you, just so you know, just people in general.

May the best man win.

Ooooh, this "ignorant and insensitive" sexism feeds me.

[Jed Dilligan]

393. Wow, it's every man for himself in this thread!

:hide:

[Innocent Smith]

401. This thread has too many flames

I'm going to man the lifeboats.

[Plucketeer]

308. May the best living thing win!

Don't want PETA on my case!

[ChiciB1]

329. Glad I Book-Marked This Post... Fantastic Picture... Made Me Cry!!! n/t

[BearSquirrel2]

344. No you don't ...

No you don't. They'll put you down like 97% of the animals they take in.

[Elspeth]

357. The Spotted Owl campaign thanks you.

We happen to think ours is the best living thing running for President. The eggplant, sadly, was pulled out of the ground and is, therefore, no longer living. (PETV will be on our case for that.)

[Kajsa]

290. Rule of thumb.

Even that is up for debate.

http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/307000.html

Origin

This has been said to derive from the belief that English law allowed a man to beat his wife with a stick so long as it is was no thicker than his thumb. In 1782 Judge Sir Francis Buller is reported as having made this legal ruling. The following year James Gillray published a satirical cartoon attacking Buller and caricaturing him as 'Judge Thumb'. The cartoon shows Buller carrying two bundles of sticks and the caption reads "thumbsticks - for family correction: warranted lawful!"

It seems that Buller was hard done by. He was notoriously harsh in his punishments, but there's no evidence that he ever made the ruling that he is infamous for. Edward Foss, in his authoritative work The The Judges of England, 1870, wrote that, despite a searching investigation, "no substantial evidence has been found that he ever expressed so ungallant an opinion".

That makes it clear that the origin refers to one of the numerous ways that thumbs have been used to estimate things - judging the alignment or distance of an object by holding the thumb in one's eye-line, the temperature of brews of beer, measurement using the estimated inch from the joint to the nail, etc. It isn't clear which of these is the precise origin and this joins the whole nine yards as a phrase that probably derives from some form of measurement but which is unlikely ever to be definitively pinned down.

[rch35]

332. haha thank you

my example seems to have been a little historically inaccurate, but i hope it did not dilute my point.

[ChiciB1]

312. I NEED TO SAY SOMETHING... Unfortunately... THIS Place Has Become So Offensive

and continually hard to take, so last night I had to get away from here and ANYTHING political. It's almost 11:45 AM here and while I don't want to spend too much time here today, or maybe for quite some time to come, I'm can't say for sure.

I did something last night that was a bit out of the ordinary for me, but I think I needed to revive myself. We had rain in my area for the FIRST TIME in a very, very, very long time. We've had a few sprinkles here and there, but it only lasted at the most 15 minutes. But it actually rained last night for a couple of hours! It was wonderful and appropriate!

I'm not sure what to believe anymore, I will say I DON'T know what commentary there was last night or even what has been said this morning, I don't even want to hear it. But I will say what I think. When I heard the returns, I was SHOCKED! And I really mean shocked. This was a state that was supposed to be in virtual 3-way tie... and yet... TELL ME WHAT HAPPENED??? Voter suppression or intimidation?

My cynicism may have reached it's height, or maybe not. No matter, what I'm about to say is what I BELIEVE and I DON'T live in a bubble and I'm not just a sore loser. It's extremely hard for me to actually believe that something "funny" didn't go on! The last I heard was Edwards got 4% of the vote... I stopped listening then. FOUR PERCENT?? Call me what you will, but to the core of my being I most certainly think something smells, and smells really bad!

So, on a relatively empty stomach I downed almost 4 beers, plugged my iPod in my ears, clipped it to my shorts, got my chocolate Labrador and went out for a walk. I was only planning a short jaunt that began at around 9:00 PM... but as I was listening to so many songs I had downloaded and with the rain washing across my body I just kept walking. Listening to the words of people like Jackson Browne, R.E.M, Bob Dylan, Joan Baez. John Lennon, Sarah Brightman, Five For Fighting and an older band called BREAD, those being the main ones. As I walked keeping time to the music I let the rain soak into me and didn't want to go home.

I let the music stream into my body, listening to words intently that had meant so much to me through the years, and I became overwhelmed with a depth of deep sadness as all my pent up emotions rose to the surface and it seems like a huge bubble burst. The words from the past and what I knew of this country we NOW call America have changed so dramatically. Maybe it's just for a week or two, I don't know, but what I'm seeing isn't worth fighting for anymore. I understand people of different parties having different views, but the vitriol here is ASTOUNDING! It's UGLY, NASTY & HATEFUL and that's what we have become, IMHO!

John Edwards is a wonderful human being, a man who seems to want the kind of America we all once knew. I believe he wants to fight for us and DOES want to stop the rise of the POWERFUL Empires that have been building and building over the past years. He has bared his HEART & SOUL and still stays committed, when another would have just said F--K It! I would be saying, I see what they are doing to me and I am up against too many GIANTS and I'm only ONE David, how can I go on? Some of it may be that he knows he has a wife who has incurable cancer and he will eventually have to bear the immense pain of losing his "soul mate!" Maybe he knows how much she cares and he wants to make this dream come true for her too. I don't know, and I DON'T know how he does it.

Getting only 4% of the vote when the state was projected as too close to call, said VOLUMES to me! There ARE people out there (powerful people) who will do ANYTHING to stop him. Believe it or not... it doesn't matter to me if you do. MY HEART tells me something too! Stay high with the GLEE you now feel that you won something yesterday, but I will always wonder JUST WHAT IT WAS YOU WON! I plan to keep what I have just written, so in a couple of years I may be able to reflect back on it and see if my angst had real meaning!

BTW, since I didn't have my walking meter on, I have no idea how many miles I walked, but I never came home until almost 12:00 AM, my dog loved it and I felt cleaner than I had in a very long time. Still my heart is heavy, but I am thankful for ONE thing. I'm 61 and I may not have many years left, THAT I am thankful for because I have a home and a few dollars saved and I'll be able to muddle through. Not rich or wealthy, but I'll make it. I won't be able to leave much for my kids or grandkids, but my parents didn't leave me anything either. Back then it was easier to make ends meet and my husband was a union man so we have health insurance too! We now care for his mother who is 95 and has Alzheimer's, and we've had her living here for 9 years. She may make it to 100, who knows, but it's what we do.

I AM sorry I can't do much more, I have tried and tried for so many years, but unlike John Edwards I myself want to crawl into "my shell" and ignore what is going on around me. Will I feel the same next week, I can't say... but the bile that sits in my stomach regarding the corruption that surrounds this country is so bitter and distasteful I just want to run away as fast as I can!

At least the rain washed some of filth off of me!

[wake.up.america]

318. There has to be a meaningful change in America. Edwards is the only one...

who approaches my ideas.

Clinton or Obama will be more of the same.

[rch35]

334. I agree with you.

I could not believe it when i heard the four percent result. it made no sense. he still has my vote.

[2rth2pwr]

362. Maybe you were just drunk? nt

[Two Americas]

383. hmmm...

There is a fine line between humor and depravity. I think you just erased that line.

[2rth2pwr]

395. Perfect! nt

[ChiciB1]

398. Sorry, But I Don't Find Any Humor In What I Had To Say... And I Wouldn't

call myself depraved. Nor was I drunk!

[Two Americas]

399. ChiciB1 -

I wasn't responding to you. Maybe you didn't mean to respond to me?

[ChiciB1]

402. I Didn't Think You Were Responding To Me... It Just Looked That Way. To You...

After I had made my first comment to 2x2 or whatever the name was, I felt a compulsion to add the other on. And that really didn't need to be said. I think I made my point with my first response to him/her... I'm just fed up with abusive Democrats. I'm sure I have said somethings a couple of times, but on the whole it's not my nature.

I can see why you felt that way. BTW, you may have been around and "lurking" as they call it, but if not Welcome To DU! I'm not the one to be sending flowers and candy right now... but there are many nice people here. I try to comfort others and I see others comforting me. And what YOU said was spot on! The "perfect" reply without further comment implied to me that the person had no real answer or was trying to make it "look" like I'm the fool! That is one thing I'm not.

Thanks anyway!

[ChiciB1]

397. And Maybe.... Just Maybe.....

I smoked some stuff, found some mushrooms to eat, and a peyote plant along the way. I saw myself float out of my body and was lifted into a clouds and looked down and saw what a "Horses Ass" you are!!

My bad... mentioning I drank three and a half Miller Lites. Drunk?? It would take a lot more and I doubt I would have been able to walk for 3 hours! You just proved my point though!

[shimmergal]

368. I too was very disappointed, but

I don't view the caucus results here as the crack of doom as so many do.

The BIG villains here are the caucus system and the Media chattering class, who keep making big bucks for getting everything wrong in their analyses.

And Geroge W. Bush, of course, whose talent for turning everything he touches to shit makes a Democratic restoration--no matter who the candidate--look like paradise in comparison.

Most people don't delve beyond the TV news to find out candidates' real positions on issues.

And most of us who've been around a while know that nobody's campaign promises are going to emerge from post-election skirmishing unchanged, so we have to try to look into the politician's heart to guess how hard -- AND how effectively -- they'll work to turn the essence of their policies into reality.

Lastly, a majority of the American voting population is either female, non-white, or both. Most of us have probably suffered as many subtle "insults", and even lack of opportunities, from one of these identities as we've suffered from the stupid wealth-is-all Republican policies. Payback is a bitch, but it's an inevitable factor, and (I guess) we should be thankful it's coming out in voting behavior, rather than more toxic ways.

For his principles, I supported Edward, and there's no question but what his populist approach has so far shown him to be the most electable.

OTOH, the corporate interests might devour him once he was at the top of a general election ticket. I think it may take several elections to make the world safe for a candidate to openly proclaim his message.

What I HOPE is that both Clinton and Obama realize this, and are practicing a sort of stealth strategy. Of course, they couldn't say so if they are.

But we do now have the blogosphere as a counterweight to all the RW crazies who've romped unchallenged through the political arena for so many years. And we have a chance to elect a real majority of progressive Congresscritters, who can exert pressure on a Democratic president to counter the influence of all that corporate money.

So don't give up! Positive change, unfortunately, usually only comes in increments (barring the unexpected event which turns all predictions askew. We may even be heading into that, as we spiral faster into recession --thanks to Georgie Porgie's demented spend-it-all war, etc.)

[ChiciB1]

404. I Myself Am Aware That All Promises Made By Candidates Can NEVER

be accomplished, they never are, but that's okay... as long as the effort and willingness can be followed through. I've been political since I was around 11, I've seen quite a bit myself.

But I don't think I've ever seen what is going on now! A corrupt president with a corrupt administration that THE CONGRESS seems "lame" in it's efforts to change. I also know that there actually is no way to pass ANY legislation that will be passed because of the VETO POWER... but as Edwards has said... just keep pushing back at them. It at least "looks" like they are trying.

I used to think most politics were cyclical, and a change of Presidency meant we could look forward something different. I really wish I could get to "that place" where I believed that either Clinton or Obama are the ones who really want much to change. JMO.

I suppose in a way that the Edwards message is more than many can handle in this day and age, what with the supposed news harking Infotainment all the time. My sadness is that we MUST start addresses this "star" power illusion now! It's very late (early) and I need to get to bed.

Thanks for the comments... they are appreciated.

[Misha2]

377. thanks

I have been feeling the same way and I couldn't really understand why. I have been so depressed over the anger and downright nastines of the supporters of the candidates. So much has been focused on crap stuff. If we continue to divide ourselves how can we ever win in November?

[Samantha]

400. It used to be this place was for listening to expressions of

political outrage and responding with messages of assurances of legitimacy for those feelings or civil logical rebuttal designed to make the poster re-think his or her position. That seems to have fallen by the wayside. I came late to this thread and was very surprised you poured out your heart in such a plaintiff way and no immediate responses followed. I haven't read the entire thread so perhaps some do follow downhill.

I totally understand how you feel. I am not in the Edwards camp, but I do like his candidacy. I was floored when I saw he only received 4%. My only thought was he was a victim of the caucus system. It's inherently flawed. That's not much consolation to you, I know, but from hereon you have primaries to look forward to, and they should reflect a more positive response to his message.

As someone who also has been devastated by past political turn of events, I would like to encourage you to prepare yourself for the fact this is not going to end as you would like. But it has the possibility of impacting the outcome in ways perhaps that were not conceived by his supporters from the inception of his campaign, so perhaps you might want to give some thought, as a back-up plan, as to how that can be effectuated. And there's always tomorrow. I do not get the impression he and Elizabeth are going to disappear from the political horizon, regardless of how this race ends.

Politics is such a dirty business I do not think any amount of rain can wash away the stain it has on all of us; the best we can do, if we want to remain involved, is to build up internal mechanisms to recycle the trash into something we can use.

Good luck to you in your recovery from Saturday night's disappointment, and I look forward to your future posts.

Sam
(an ardent Al Gore Admirer, who can't commit
to any other candidate but who is at the edge,
hovering on recovery)

[ChiciB1]

406. Living In Florida... The Gore Situation Was Devastating To Me Also.

I can remember when they called the state for him and immediately ran next door with excitement beyond words! Then came back home and watched the "rest" of the fiasco.

But Gore actually won in the end...I don't know why he would want to get back into this awful mess. He came out looking so much better than this administration. But I think so many times, what COULD have been. That hurts too... but I never thought he was going to run again.

I'm just not comfortable with the 2 so called front runners and I don't have it in me to get out and stump for either. You know, your heart has to be in it. Just the simplicity of saying... Bush, Clinton, Clinton, Bush, Bush and NOW another Clinton doesn't seem like Democracy to me. But there are other issues I have with her too. And I'm supposed to be the type of person who back her! White women Boomers! BTW, while I'm a year older, she was born 1 day after me... 10-26-47!

And with Obama, has nothing to do with color, I honestly think he's just not ready. Sure Bush wasn't ready either, but BUSH had the whole "cabal" from people going way back to Reagan.

I don't know, but thank you to! Now I must get to bed. Insomnia tonight... soon I'll get worn out enough to crash!

[alteredstate]

86. You're truly a jerk.

[Roland99]

199. Jesus H. Christ on a popsicle stick!

:eyes:

[TheWatcher]

271. Well this isn't exactly what you ordered

but it's the best I could come up with on short notice. :evilgrin:

[Roland99]

275. he he

[surfermaw]

98. It should have been between Edwars and whom ever

I agree with the poster, Obama never had a chance to win an election and I'm not too sure Hillary can win, Edwards could have beaten any republican running....

[Triana]

145. Yup. But the corprats and the corprat media chose HillBama ...

... and so did others who bought into the word 'change' on the McPackaging while the contents inside are the same old status quo.

:shrug:

[Gonnuts]

177. Ah, Americans ...

still stupid after all these years.

But hey, don't be too hard on poor creatures, they work hark, long hours and can only go off sound bites hammered at them 24/7/365 by M$M talking heads.

God forbid anyone should look behind so-called front-runners ... we're too busy going broke.

[pauldg0]

218. I have been an Edwards supporter..............

...for about 6-years. I changed over from the Republican party during Edwards 04 run. I must admit I have been obsessed with the newspaper blogs and John Edwards drive for the Presidency since. He is the MAN FOR THE PEOPLE and I pray a miracle could still be there for him and Elizabeth. I have continually looked at newspaper article comments and have developed what I thought was a pretty good gauge of who should win.

An example would be like this...........If a primary/caucus was approaching, I would dig into the local papers...i.e. The Des Moines Register, the New Hampshire papers, etc.

Whenever there was a positive article about John Edwards in the paper, almost all respondents were saying something positive about him.....estimating 65-75% positive notes (sometimes I kept score). Then I would do the same for a Hillary or Obama positive article. You know what? Most of the time Edwards still tallyed up more positive remarks. He would get a 50% success rate from respondents to those articles. Based on all the data, I was sure Edwards would win the nomination.

Two days ago, I was reading a positive Edwards article in the Las Vegas Star. The stats worked out the same way as the Iowa and New Hampshire newspapers. Edwards' positive responses were everywhere, even on favorable Obama and Clinton articles.

What bothers me is how in the hell can Edwards only get 4% of the vote in Nevada....it just boggles my mind to no end !!!

Am I stupid or what?

Maybe I shouldn't beat myself to death here, but other things have crossed my mind..........

. maybe 'we' on the blogs are more informed about our candidates...that being the case, I think informed people would prefer Edwards as their Democrat to run for president..

. did Edwards not know how to convince the uninformed or limited informed....people with only one agenda in mind who will not or can't look at the total picture because of limitations of maturity, or their preferred gender or race? An example would be my son who plays with his computer games all night and is voting for Obama because he's a cool black man with a great speech. Or my 55-year old cousin who states "I'm voting for Hillary Clinton because it's really time to have a women as president", and that being their ONLY agenda's !!??

Many of the young that can vote now do not know of the good life and the great economy of 1960-80's....they are the lost generation, they don't know what John Edwards is talking about.....they are uninformed or immature and are the votes Obama and Hillary have won over.

THEN OF COURSE THERE IS THE 4%. Even with all I have said, it does not seem possible that John Edwards was whipped this badly. Could big money from Corporate America have scammed John Edwards at the voting booths across Nevada? After all there were some poles that had all three candidates even.....I'm very shaken by all of this.

EDWARDS 08

[rch35]

257. I'm an 18 year old edwards supporter, and i am sure my generation would resent your accusations nt

[pauldg0]

260. Thank you.

Start spreading the message.....to the majority of the young that have been supporting Obama, a man who talks but says nothing of how he will walk the talk....I congratulate you on your support of John Edwards!!

Sorry I offended you, but if you read the blogs, it is true!!! There are lot's of uninformed people out there that do not see what John Edwards is about.

[rch35]

262. I agree on some points.

I do agree that much of my generation is under-educated, but I think that can go for many generations. I disagree that Obama is necessarily all talk. He reminds me a lot of Al Gore in 2000. He is a great person, a great orator, debater, and he is principled and strong, but like Al Gore in 2000, he seems to be letting his advisor's run much of his campaign, and just like Al Gore in 2000 that could be what sometimes makes him to be inauthentic to some, and ridiculous to others. I think he would be a good President if elected, and I do feel inspired when I hear his speeches. I think there is a lot to what he says, and I think he is educated and informed. He just seems to be making some of the mistakes that have hurt other candidates in the past. Everybody puts aside their convictions for politics when they want to become President. Abraham Lincoln didn't get elected saying he was going to free the slaves. It was just what he was meant to do, and even when he originally did it, he did it strategically. He only freed the slaves in states that rebelled, a brilliant calculation which kept some of the slave states on his side to help fight the South. I think John Edwards is a great person, and I still plan to vote for him, but I do not want to minimize Obama.

[ChiciB1]

323. They May... But I Have An 19-Year Old Grandson Who Was Astonished

by the results! In a THREE-WAY match-up... SOMETHING smells... and he WAS an Obama supporter! Why? Not because he knew anything about him, but because he plays basketball and many of his friends on the team are black. He's white and he says "they're cool!" AND THEY ARE!! They've been to my house for dinner and I've been at his home when the spent the night! We are all "people" not just a color!!

They play all kinds of games, have a WII and every new gadget, downloads and call each other on cell-phones in a grocery store! I'm 61, I'm old... I guess! But I will say I work out a LOT more than my daughter or son-in-law do, but THEY make more money, to buy all the new gadgets. I don't put them down for it, it's nice knowing I can go to them when I can't figure out the new stuff! But I am, sorry... there SHOULD be more research and reviewing of any candidates... NOT just the ones deem ACCEPTABLE BY the POWERS THAT BE!!

And I AM sorry if you're offended, you are an exception because you're blogging here.

[rch35]

338. there should be a lot more research, but there are many many young

edwards, obama, and hillary supporters who are informed about the issues, they have just come to different conclusions. I could never vote for Hillary in the primaries, and I can't understand why someone else would, but that doesn't necessarily mean they are uninformed.

[Mithreal]

267. "it just boggles my mind to no end" It's about STARPOWER

Senators Obama and Clinton have STARPOWER. They are CELEBRITIES. The most passive, easiest, laziest way to pick a CHANGE candidate is to pick one that doesn't look like all that came before. I really do not think that it is altogether so hard to understand, but I will admit even to me, my own words sound unbelievable, but there you have it, it's STARPOWER. Edwards isn't out of it, so don't give in to it : )

[SammyWinstonJack]

297. And by whom were they given that 'STARPOWER'? The same powers that are denying Edwards and Kucinich

any (but negative) attention. Again we let the corporate owned news (CON) pick our candidate(s) for us. :argh:

[x-g.o.p.er]

273. Edwards doesn't have as much money as HRC or BO, so..

he has to pick where he can campaign. South Carolina is home turf, so he's spending time and money there, hoping for a breakthrough. He never polled well in Nevada, so he wisely pulled out. In the grand scheme of things, Nevada is small potatoes.

South Carolina is his best chance to get momentum. A third place showing for him there, and he's finished.

[2rth2pwr]

364. Amazing- the same 2 lame excuses everytime he loses. 1) The voters are idiots

and/or 2)It's a massive corportocat conspiracy.

Pathetic.

[2rth2pwr]

365. It was a caucus, no voting booths. yeeeesshh. nt

[rjones2818]

276. We've know since 2004 that Obama was being

positioned to run for President. It's no surprise that he did.

[Patriot Abroad]

355. Typical murkin

Start a flame war, then nowhere to be seen . . .

[yardwork]

2. Now this is the kind of rant we should be having here at DU!

THIS is the kind of rant that furthers discussion! Rock on.

[IndianaJones]

3. I think its clear that people just don't like the guy. nt.

[Krashkopf]

5. I notice that you DIDN'T answer my question!

Because I am sure you KNOW the answer!

[IndianaJones]

7. Clinton and Obama stand head and shoulders over Edwards and the people see that.

Does whining help?

[Krashkopf]

8. Again, another NON-RESPONSE.

[IndianaJones]

9. again...he's a proven loser. he'll never get the nomination, and he doesn't deserve it. nt

[derby378]

Strike three!

Yet another non-answer. Wanna go for four in a row? :shrug:

[IndianaJones]

30. it must suck to back such a consistent loser. lol. nt.

[derby378]

70. And that makes four...

...and you have yet to say a word in defense of your candidate. Or are you relying on the old "It's her turn" argument?

FWIW, I don't have a horse in this race, so chill.

[IndianaJones]

73. that makes 4 states Edwards has lost...doh...five in his back yard next week. nt.

[Caseman]

76. Wow...

...You are very arrogant and ignorant. A deadly combination... Have fun living life blind.

[IndianaJones]

77. wow...your guy got 4% in NV...

[Caseman]

82. My guy?

I thought the question was about your insanity, not my politics.

[IndianaJones]

84. insanity is backing Edwards over and over and expecting him to ever win a contest. nt.

[Caseman]

88. Who says I support Edwards...

...If I didn't know you were already blind, I would scold you to look at my avatar and not assume baselessly. Way to show off your intellect...

[IndianaJones]

92. hold on...I support Biden too.

[focusfan]

167. then if you support Biden your in the wrong discussion group

this is for Democrates not Republicans

[IndianaJones]

176. Democrates suck. nt.

[Kajsa]

282. Then you're on the wrong website.

Read the rules.

[IndianaJones]

301. is this site for Democrates followers only? nt.

[Kajsa]

307. Once again, read the rules.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/forums/rules.html

Who We Are: Democratic Underground is an online community for Democrats and other progressives. Members are expected to be generally supportive of progressive ideals, and to support Democratic candidates for political office.

Here's the extended version.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/forums/rules_detailed.html

[IndianaJones]

310. Where does it mention greek philosopher Democrates, concerned one? nt.

[Kajsa]

339. WTH?

Why didn't you state that from the beginning?

Isn't communication the point of posting?

Is this a joke regarding a man very few people know
about and according to Wikipedia,

"Democrates (Greek: Δημοκράτης a Pythagorean philosopher, concerning whom absolutely nothing is known"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democrates


Actually, he had a lot to say,

http://www.sacred-texts.com/cla/gvp/gvp05.htm

[TheWatcher]

270. What is a Democrate?

I'm series. I really do want to know.

[Plucketeer]

309. I was wondering the same thing!

[Kucinich4America]

403. I think Democrates hung around with Bill & Ted

(no, NOT Clinton & Kennedy! Those other guys)

[mrbluto]

335. Look you know what he is....

...why are you feeding him?

I'm not allowed to say what IndianaJones is since I would be reprimanded, but I'm sure you can guess what he is.

His remarks are all there just to piss you off the most for the least effort on his part.

Since there's no way (in this forum) to boot such useless divisive posters we'll either have to leave or live with them.

[paulk]

340. this from someone with 150 posts?

:eyes:

[IndianaJones]

347. boohoo

[JDPriestly]

197. He has 18 delegates.

[IsItJustMe]

114. Mighty strong words there pilgrim. Looser? Just who the hell appointed you god to judge people as

looser. Oh, I know, you thought it, therefore it must be true.

[Tesha]

116. Let's chat again after your candidate blows the General Election, ehh? (NT)

[Darth_Kitten]

284. He's just sore.......and obviously immature.

not worth it..........

[Darth_Kitten]

283. It must suck to be you?

Just saying......

[Kajsa]

373. -----

[Yuugal]

35. Keep pissing on passionate Edwards people

I'm bitter my guy isn't doing well, and assholes like you will be a deciding factor in which flavor of corporate Democratic turd I vote for.

[2rth2pwr]

63. Really? You would base your vote and support for the most important office in the

land on anonymous posters at at web forum?

[Krashkopf]

67. Boy do you Hillary folks sound familiar to me . . .

oh, yeah, now I remember . . . It was 2000 . . . "Your guy - Al Gore - lost. Get over it!"

[lisainmilo]

330. Al Gore lost to the same corrupt politics we are facing today!

Al Gore won the election. Corrupt politics took over Washington!

[Yuugal]

72. Obama and Hillary

They are both far far right of me. Since they are both owned by the corporates I don't have much to differentiate them with except for the reading I do here and on other progressive sites. You can tell alot about a campaign by the caliber and attitude of its supporters.

Will it be THE deciding factor, no. But it will be a contributing factor.

[bvar22]

305. Obama v Hillary....

One is black, and the other is a woman,
other than that, they are pretty much the same.

[RaleighNCDUer]

154. Is that feigned ignorance, or just bad reading comprehension?

"...assholes like you..." = supporters of corporated dems, pissers-on of progressive dems. By marginalizing progressives, we are left with two corporatists to choose between, if this is reduced to a two man race.

Progressives have been blamed for every Democratic loss in the past 35 years - ever since McGovern. Each loss, blamed on progressives, resulted in the corporatists gathering more power to themselves - particularly since 80, when the corporatists flat out abandoned the Democrats to vote for Reagan, then came back to the Democrats as the DLC 3 years later.

Enough of the neo-libs and economic imperialism. I want to vote for someone who actually supports the workers in this country.

[LSK]

206. HEY! WE ARE ALL LOSERS WITHOUT UNIVERSAL HEALTHCARE

WE ARE ALL LOSERS AS THE CORPORATIONS SQUEEZE MORE WEALTH OUT OF THE MIDDLE CLASS.

THIS ISNT A FUCKING BASEBALL GAME!!

:nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke:

[f the letter]

379. Amen amen. Universal single-payer healthcare...

is one of the two or three most urgent things on the table during this election. Unfortunately neither Edwards nor Obama nor Clinton will speak the words. Any health care plan that fails to cut out the nonsense that is for-profit healthcare and the HMO-run current system is woefully inadequate.

[Tarc]

11. Your question is hyperbolic and irrelevant

Your guy lost; get over it.

[Usrename]

41. Irrelevant?

The corruption is so bad it has become irrelevant now?

[Laelth]

47. Are you aware ...

... of how "get over it" sounds? Do you remember 2000?

:shrug:

:dem:

-Laelth

[Yael]

50. Is that a repost of the Supreme Court statement from December of 2000?

[Krashkopf]

68. Actually, I think that was the entire Supreme Court decision.

And now the Hillary people are repeating it like it was the gospel. That doesn't bode well for the Democratic wing of the Democratic party.

[cascadiance]

24. Maybe in a beauty contest...

Though I'm sure many of you will contend that his "$400 haircuts" will help him win that!

But as for substantive ISSUES that we need fundamental systemic change of this corporatocracy to help America recover, PULLEEASE! Any attempt to say that Obama and Hillary would do better at getting rid of the problems of the corporatocracy when they are the primary beneficiaries of such is a complete joke!

[ClericJohnPreston]

93. BINGO!

This site is such fun to read. If I wanted to do a thesis on lack of critical-thinking, it can be seen everywhere you turn here.

Most post with 50/50 hindsight, bash their own Party's icons, see no problem in one of their own channeling Reagan or in throwing activism under the bus.

They just don't get it, how manipulated they are. Most of us who support Edwards have taken the more difficult course out of "The Matrix". Those idiots who need vicarious victories in their life, are the most pathetic.

Sometimes, it is better to lose a fight, fought for the right reasons, than to win for the wrong ones.

[JDPriestly]

203. I agree. It's more important to do what is right than to win.

Because if you lose by doing what is wrong, what have you won?

That is what I don't like about Hillary and Obama. How can a candidate win by standing for compromise? I vote for a candidate who will make a promise and do his or her best to deliver on that promise. I'm tired of the Pelosis and Reids and DLCers who just want to get elected for the sake of getting elected. That is not enough. Our country is entering what promises to be one of the worst if not the worst recession since 1936. The dollar is at an all-time low against the Euro. And once the Saudis and other wealthy countries decide to stop accepting it is the currency in trade, it will fall further. And Bush and Obama want to give tax cuts to the rich.

We need someone who can think for himself. And the only person who fits that description is Edwards.

[Hart2008]

53. Only when Hillary stands on box!

:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:

[Andy823]

58. Now that's funny

They are one in the same. Pretty much the same votes, and pretty much the same "MONEY" in their pockets from big corporations. Now the only "change" you get with either one of them is that the corporations will have to "change" who they give their money to, from repbugs to dems!

It's really sad that so many americans can't tell a "con" job when they see it, really sad! When the repugs keep the whitehouse in November, remember you helped them!

[2rth2pwr]

65. Americans have seen the "con job" and voted for someone else. nt

[venable]

62. stupid pompous pathetic response

and by 'people' you mean entrenched moneyed interests, including the media and mindless supporters of the status quo, and i'm talking to you HRC.

[IndianaJones]

78. 4% in NV..

[IsItJustMe]

117. Yep, could be a good indicator of what's left of liberal democrats. Have no idea, but it saying

something, and it's not necessarily LOOSER.

[DaLittle Kitty]

294. HEAD And Shoulders Above Edwards IN DISHONESTY, Lack of Ethics, and Being SELLOUTS 2 THE CORPORATION

BOTH TOPS IN WALLSTREET $MONEY$, ESTABLISHMENT STATUS QUO PRESERVATIONIST ENDORSEMENTS!

YEAH THIS ISSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS CHANGE...

TOTAL MORONS! DRINK SOME MORE KOOL AID FOLKS! It's good for you and your children... Lt's increase the subsidies to Corporate America to send MORE Middle class jobs to 3rd world countries...

Lets Pay Corporate America to stop Progress as a Civilization... DEAD IN ITS TRACKS!

UNBELIEVABLE! :nuke:

[Plucketeer]

311. Eggsactly!

What we're seeing is that neither candidate of the two is the winner - corporate MONEY is the winner. And corporate money's gonna come calling on all the IOU slips that those two are holding. Is corporate money gonna ask them to give us a fair shake on health care? On labor? On wages? On immigration policy? Right! In an elephant's eye, they are. Go ahead and CROW about the gal and the black. They're just convenient distractions under which the real power can proceed as desired. This is no longer a govermment BY or FOR "the people".

[DaLittle Kitty]

327. EGGSACTLY CORP OWNED MEDIA IS THE VOICE FER CORPORATE AMERICA

Simple...

[petersjo02]

13. Bulls___ n/t

[rhett o rick]

28. Where did you get that idea? Corporate TV. nm

[Usrename]

39. How can you be so sure about that?

Don't you think it might have anything to do with having those other two rammed down our throats.

[AndyA]

4. By God, I didn't type those words, but I SURE COULD HAVE.

If I could rec this a hundred times I would!

You struck that one out of the ballpark, Krashkopf!!

:thumbsup:

[Pyrzqxgl]

111. Hilary & Obama aren't being rammed down this old boys throat. I spit them out.

I'm voting for Edwards in the California primary & if he doesn't win well who ever does win the Democratic nomination is going to have to show me
a hell of a lot before I bother to vote in November.

[JDPriestly]

208. Same here.

The worst thing possible would be to elect a Democrat who isn't really a Democrat.

I remember when Gore was running after eight years of Bill Clinton. Many Democrats said they weren't going to vote for him because they couldn't tell the difference between the Democrats and the Republicans. I don't want another president who acts like a Republican. Edwards is the only candidate who is true to Democratic ideals.

[balantz]

6. My sentiments too.

[liskddksil]

10. Your choices in this election

1. Extreme DLC, Hillary
2. Slightly Less DLC, Obama
3. Progressive, Edwards

Its that simple.

[Clark2008]

285. John Edwards, DLC when he was in office

http://www.gwu.edu/~action/2004/edwards/edw073002sp.html

http://www.ndol.org/ndol_ci.cfm?kaid=106&subid=122&contentid=251080

I hate revisionists.

[NorthCarolina]

287. You Forgot One

4. Real Progressive and Traditional anti-DLC Democrat, Kucinich

NOW it's that simple.

[BrklynLiberal]

12. YESSSSSSSSSS !!!!!!

[Tennessee Gal]

14. My concerns exactly!

Good post.

[David Zephyr]

15. Good rant!

As an Obama supporter, I must admit that you are spot on.

I wish that Obama had spoken more to the issues of class that Edwards did, but then he would have been smeared as being a Black Panther I imagine.

My fear now is that Hillary will now coast to the nomination and will be able to move back to the conservative "center" that she and Bill are comfortable with.

I know that Obama will be the next to be marginalized as was Kucinich and Edwards.

The Clintons and the DLC might have millions of Americans looking toward a Bloomberg ticket which will hurt the Democrats.

Kucinich and Edwards had the best health care proposals.

[sandyd921]

209. Well maybe if Obama hadn't written us progressives off

and was offering some genuinely progressive policies we would be willing to back him up. But I and many others have no inclination to do so now or later. Come thick or thin I'm sticking with a real Democrat, John Edwards.

[Yael]

16. Slam-fucking dunk

:applause:

You speak for my frustration and absolute mind boggliing confusion as to why the party of the LEFT is verring so far to the right.

Have we misread the support for Bush and the neo-cons, or are we just missing out on the DEPTH factor here.

Maybe the country is afraid of change?

[fooj]

17. Yes.

[OzarkDem]

18. DC Dems are trying to push Edwards out of the race

the same group who have done such a poor job in Congress, giving Bush everything he asks for with no objections.

Its not an accident that Edwards good showing was cut in NV - the state where the pathetic Harry Reid rules the roost. How can you expect the same Dems who want the US to stay in Iraq and watch our economy and middle class shrink while doing nothing to support someone like Edwards. He's the antithesis of what they believe - that big money donors and GOP rule are good.

[Yael]

26. So riddle me this

With their stellar 11% approval rating -- HOW IN BLAZES are they still at the forefront of this?

I mean, dear God -- this economy is in the toilet, we owe $9 trillion to the Chinese for a war that is INCREDIBLY unpopular -- but people are voting for the status quo to stay in DC?

Have I stepped into an alternate universe here?

[rhett o rick]

31. No this is America where the only thing we like about change is the word itself. nm

[xiamiam]

74. people are voting for the status quo here on du..nt

[Freddie Stubbs]

306. Which "DC Dems" are trying to push Edwards out of the race?

:shrug:

[FrenchieCat]

19. Watch this S.F. Chronicle interview with Obama....

it will answer your question in how Obama believes he can do exactly what you ask.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/object/article?f=/c/a/2008/01/18/MNSNUH7GC.DTL&o=0&type=politics

[ClericJohnPreston]

109. "kewl" Frenchie

Do you ever think for yourself?

[Clark2008]

286. She does and far more often than you.

Anyone who's studied Edwards career for even a short amount of time would see is voting patterns, his history and his finger-in-the-wind waving and realized by now that he's about as progressive as Lee Greenwood.

Apparently, you let Edwards' campaign rhetoric do your thinking.

[gtar100]

226. That was a good interview. Thanks for the link.

Obama goes into much more depth about his strategy and concerns. Too often we get caught up in one particular candidate and then all we hear from the others are short sound bites. I was beginning to wonder if there was anything behind the word "change" for him. He explains his positions well, speaks coherently, shows compassion and understanding on a wide range of issues (now just that alone would be a change!). In particular, he discussed climate change and his approach towards a more open government. I believe I could vote for Senator Obama and have a sense of hope, at least as much as is reasonable to have in a politician.

[madeline_con]

20. Edwards referred to her as "The Status Quo". n/t

[Red Knight]

21. Get in the boat with us Kucinich people

We realized this awhile ago.

People only SAY they want change.

The truth?

They don't even know what that means. Perception is reality. Personality rules. The media telling you who your candidate is becomes truth. And gloating as though it's a sporting event becomes the norm.

In the end....as David Cay Johnston says: "There is only one party--the party of money."

[Yael]

27. Can I slide in here next to you?

I am too dizzy to keep standing over here on the corner and beating my head into this lamppost isn't helping.

[freefall]

354. So glad to see David Cay Johnston quoted. Everybody should read "Free Lunch"

I am about a third of the way through it. I have to take breaks because it is so depressing to see the truth about the class war being waged against the middle class and the poor in this country. Nevertheless, it is helping me to understand just how pernicious and pervasive corporate welfare and welfare for the rich is and to further understand the tremendous price we are paying as a community. After reading Mr. Johnston's book I will never again allow myself to feel inferior to someone with money and power.

Thanks for the quote, Red Knight.

Peace,

freefall

[TankLV]

22. Righteous rant, my friend - and I don't blame you one bit...

and I understand how you feel - I don't agree with all your positions, but I understand completely...

Now lets get those REPUKE bastards!!!

[shireen]

23. thank you

two weeks ago, I was undecided ... but I've been gradually warming up to Edwards. I feel disappointed about the Nevada caucus too, and wonder what's going on in the minds of the voters. What the heck kind of thought processes are going on that make them vote for the other two? I wish I understood it.

[jkurri]

135. reply to your post

As a caucus goer in Nevada I can tell you from experience that the people in Nevada are stupid. No really. Edwards did NO advertising in northern Nevada on TV and that my friend is how people here make up their minds, no research, no thought, the one who is on most get the votes. In my precinct the Clinton supports could not even answer the challenges from the Obama supporters or Edwards supports other then chant "HRC, HRC, HRC" I kid you not. One of them asked the guy supporting Obama if he was aware of Obamas middle name because he might be tied to Bin Laden. I shit you not... that was the talk. I hope the people of your state at least take the time to do their research and have an idea of why they are supporting their candidate. It is sad to say just like this thread other then calling Edwards supporters losers and saying their "guy" won is all you will get out of them because quite frankly they are stupid too and they are too lazy to actually use their brains to figure out who will actually best represent their position(s). I am embarassed to say that I am a Nevadan, if ANY of them even had an idea about why they were supporting her I would back off a bit but they don't know why they are thats why they wont give you an answer. Please don't give up on John, if you've done the research give him your support he deserves it and so does the rest of the country to show others that at least some people think before they vote and can think without someone telling them who they should support.


Stand your ground for Edwards... He would for you.

[Andrea]

137. wow interesting

Thanks for posting this inside view of a caucus. I don't think it is just Nevadans by a long shot. I was writing a post below while you were writing this one about the people I met while canvassing last fall in Columbus. It is really disturbing how ignorant many people are.

[RaleighNCDUer]

156. Welcome to DU, and thanks for standing up for Edwards.

I hope you're prepared for what you're jumping into here.

[JDPriestly]

212. Did you make phone calls for Edwards?

Did you walk any precincts for Edwards?

[jkurri]

219. Yes I did, and will continue too

I have sent Edwards a few donations totaling probably 200 or more dollars and have donated probably 20+ hours in the last week, I called, I canvassed and I caucused for him and intend to do more. I find it interesting on this site the people who bash almost never actually have real reasons for their choices, especially the Clinton supporters, for me this isn't about a historic event, its about our future as a society and a people, Its about standing up to someone because I believe that we all are equal as humans, a wealthy persons life is not worth more or less then a poor persons. Are we going to surrender every freedom to the wealthy? How many more people who actually have a chance to make a difference are going to stick up for the 95% of us who can only vote and send small donations and give time? The way a lot of these posters act you would think John Edwards was taking food literally out of their mouth. I don't get it. I guess my mistake was actually reading the candidates plans, listening to them speak, and learning of their actions. My bad I suppose. But I refuse to give up and I hope John does too.

[JDPriestly]

230. I'm with you.

No matter what happens, you will always remember that you worked for what you believed was right. It's a matter of integrity. You do your very best and you accept what happens. You are only to blame if you do nothing. I'm also working very hard for Edwards. I'm doing all I can. I worked more than 20 hours for Edwards this week. How much time I can work for him depends on my job work load.

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

315. I'm about to participate in our state caucus here in CO, for the first time. What I saw, as a

neophyte was a bit worrisome, in that I anticipate some of the very incidents you describe. When you are separating out a handful of people to supposedly represent the entire district, well, the potential for a small number of vocal supporters to dominate the process seems almost inevitable.

It's been very educational. I wish we had regular primary voting here, though.

MKJ

[progressoid]

29. This part...

"Come November, those of us who WANTED REAL, SUBSTANTIVE CHANGE, will hold our collective nose and vote for him, or her, just like we always do."

I had the exact same thought earlier today. K&R!

[stravu9]

32. YES YES AND YES!

TESTIFY!

[truedelphi]

33. My name is Hillary Clinton and I have approved this message

I bring thirty five years of experience to the job of President. I know that sounds like a lot of experience, but it takes us all back to the year 1972, when I was in law school with my future husband Bill. While with Bill, during his years running for Governor of Arkansas and then later, running for President, I learned the value of taking money from corporate sponsors, er, campaign contributions from lobbyists, er, I mean, donations from friends of Bill.

I watched while Bill signed on to the task of bringing NAFTA to the USA and through his efforts, it become law. Although NAFTA might have hurt the working person in all the countries that it affected, it helped the corporate sponsors, er, the campaign coffer contributers, er, I mean, the friends of Bill.

At one point, NAFTA hurt the working class so much that my President-husband offered a twenty BILLION dollar bailout to Mexico. Although this bailout resulted in the average Mexican worker seeing his hourly wage become chopped in half due to the inflationary results of the bailout (74 cents an hour to 47 cents an hour) the bailout did help those banker friends of Bill's and mine that were corporate sponsors, er, campaign contributers who were lobbyists, er, the crowd of folks we think of as friends of Bill.

Knowing that I would be good for the State Of New York I ran as Senator and captured that Seat. While there, I encouraged President George W Bush's diplomatic efforts on the issue of Iraq, by voting for the IWR. Learning from that experience, I also encouraged George W Bush's desire to be diplomatic with Iran and voted for the Kyle Lieberman resolution.

ALthough I want everyone to be insured, health care wise, I know the importance of staying on good terms with my buddies who are corporate sponsors of my run for President, er, I mean, campaign coffer contributers via lobbyists er, friends of Hill. Therefore I am deciding that the best way to promote Universal Health Care for everyone in THE USA, will be to mandate as President that everyone buy this insurance. (Maybe in my second term in office I will end homelessness by mandating that every homeless person buy themselves a house!)

Anyway it is my earnest hope that all of you avoid Edwards like the plague. After all, he comes closest to parroting the awful sentiments of that little rodent Dennis Kucinich. I am not the only person who thinks that Kucinich is rodent-like - my buddy Rupert Murdoch sees that this troll is mentioned as little as possible in any of his fine newspaper pages, and even less in any of his airwave broadcasts.

Have to go now. It is important to get back to my real business at hand, working out deals with my corporate sponsors, er, campaign coffer contributers, er, the folks I think of as friends of mine.
January 20th will be here soon, and there are a lot of deals to work out. Some of them are even bigger than the NAFTA proposals and media consolidation deals of the mid nineteen nineties.

So long for now.

[Yael]

43. I hope the next version of DUs software includes the ability to recommend a post

WELL STATED!

[JDPriestly]

214. I second that.

[Yavapai]

49. ,,,AND DON'T FORGET,

Hillary Clinton voted for the USA Patriot Act in October 2001, and for it’s renewal in 2006. She voted in favor of the October 2002 Iraq War Resolution and still supported the war until late 2005.

Also I believe she would just continue the Clinton dynasty and we all should remember what Bill gave us. Such as:


NAFTA

The Communications Decency Act of 1996, that tried to censor the internet.

The Telecommunications Act of 1996 that eliminated major ownership restrictions for radio and television groups.

The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 that ended what was then commonly known as welfare, the Aid Families with Dependant Children (AFDC) and the Job Opportunities and Basic Skills Training (JOBS) programs.

The Line Item Veto Act of 1996. That was found to be unconstitutional and a grab for more power for the “Imperial Presidency”.

The Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (also known as AEDPA) is a series of laws in the United States signed into law on April 24, 1996 to "deter terrorism, provide justice for victims, provide for an effective death penalty, and for other purposes." It was passed by a Republican-controlled Congress (91-8-1 in the United States Senate, 293-133-7 in the House of Representatives) following the Oklahoma City bombing and signed into law by Democratic President Bill Clinton.
The AEDPA had a tremendous impact on the law of habeas corpus in the United States. One provision of the AEDPA limits the power of federal judges to grant relief unless the state court's adjudication of the claim resulted in a decision that was
1. contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States; or
2. based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the state court proceeding.
While critics have charged that this limitation effectively forecloses the power of federal courts to remedy unjust convictions, federal judges have found ways to grant relief to prisoners in habeas cases despite the limitation. After all, some interpretations of federal law can be not merely incorrect but actually unreasonable, thereby allowing federal courts to grant relief under the first prong of AEDPA's limitation.
Other provisions of the AEDPA created entirely new statutory law. For example, before AEDPA the judicially created abuse of the writ doctrine restricted the presentation of new claims through subsequent habeas petitions. The AEDPA replaced this doctrine with an absolute bar on second or successive petitions. Petitioners who attempted to bring claims in federal habeas proceedings that have already been decided in a previous habeas petition would find those claims barred. Petitioners who had already filed a federal habeas petition were required to first secure authorization from the appropriate federal court of appeals. Furthermore, AEDPA took away from the Supreme Court the power to review a court of appeals's denial of that permission, thus placing final authority for the filing of second petitions in the hands of the federal courts of appeals. (from Wikepidia). The first real threat against the Writ of Habeas Corpus!
The Defense of Marriage Act, that allowed states to refuse recognition of certain same-sex marriages, and defined marriage as between a male and female for purposes of federal law.

The Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997, that lowered the top capitol gains rate from 28% to 20%. Just like Dub-ya!

The Iraq Liberation Act of 1998, a congressional statement of policy calling for regime change in Iraq. (Precursor for the Iraq War).

Initiated the Don’t ask, don’t tell policy toward gays in the military, 1993. A stab in the back after many campaign promises.

Extraordinary rendition got approval for the first time in the USA from the Clinton administration. The kidnapping and extrajudicial transfer of a person from one state to another for the purpose of torture. (Thought that Bush started one, didn’t you!)

The Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act, violating our 2nd amendment rights as free citizens.

[JDPriestly]

216. You forgot criminalization of desecration of the flag.

Not that I'm in favor of desecration of the flag - - but why do we need criminal penalties for it?


http://www.mydd.com/story/2005/12/5/211436/972

[truedelphi]

350. I'm saving this excellent list to my hard drive. n/t

[Andrea]

118. Bingo!!!!

[focusfan]

165. i agree with you totally

[jkurri]

238. Great Post

Wow... it the nail on the head and after a bad day here for me in Nevada, a smile ends my night, thank you and keep up the great post(s)!! LOL

[bvar22]

314. LOL!

Especially like this line:

"I will end homelessness by mandating that every homeless person buy themselves a house!"

Thanks!
:toast:

[truedelphi]

349. Was that your line originally?

I totally cop to the fact that I got it from some other DU'er - wish I could remember who!

[bvar22]

359. No.....not mine.

Today is the first time I have read it.
It soooo perfectly points out the problem with Hillary's Mandatory Health Insurance Scam.

I did, however, coin the phrase "Its not you. Its me."
George Costanza stole it from me.
There is no justice in this World.
:cry:

[FlyingSquirrel]

34. The problem is not a lack of hunger for change with the DP...

The problem is our campaign finance system, the corporate takeover of elections, the fact that the "matching funds" system which was intended to even the playing field has now become defunct and has in fact made it HARDER for someone who isn't funded by the corporations to win.

CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM and MEDIA CONSOLIDATION REVERSAL are the two main things that need to happen, and without them, it doesn't matter how many within the Democratic Party want change, it won't happen. Period.

[Muttocracy]

186. yep, the money -> media -> money

is what is narrowing down our field of candidates (though his positions and rhetoric differed from Edwards, my candidate was also not on big corporate money).

Welcome to our hell :hug:

[Milo_Bloom]

36. It has nothing to do with the DLC or the message, it is the MESSENGER!

Very few BELIEVE Edwards when he SAYS he wants change.

There is no reason to believe him or trust him. He has given us no reason to trust him.

Its not a media conspiracy, its not the DLC, its nothing more than people not trusting an empty suit who tells people what they want to hear, but doesn't have the record to back up his own rhetoric.

That's all that is going on with Edwards.

[Kucinich4America]

This goes beyond Edwards.

The whore media was only acknowledging Hillary and Obama when there were still 8 candidates in this race. There are still 4 (or 5? I still don't know if Gravel is in or out) candidates left, but you would never fucking know it from the media.

[Milo_Bloom]

45. Its not the "media".

The media follows the money, just like they did in 2004, because the money tells them who has support.

When Howard Dean (without any media attention) was able to outraise other democrats with much higher name recognition (Kerry, Lieberman, etc..) the media took serious notice and started covering him.

Think of it like TV ratings. The candidate attracting most donations (not even in $$$ form, but contributors) has interest and the media, being a business, wants to give the story that will get the most attention and thus will cover the candidate with the most interest.

It really is that simple.

[Kucinich4America]

56. But the media also STOPPED covering Dean

Specifically after he said he would break up the corporate media giants. Edwards has echoed those sentiments recently.

[fooj]

75. Exactly.

[Milo_Bloom]

140. That's not true.

They stopped covering Dean after he lost Iowa and then New Hampshire and was basically out of the race.

Many people BLAMED the media for hurting Dean b/c of the scream, but the reality is that Dean was done when he lost Iowa after leading in the polls there and wound up coming in a disappointing third place after spending 40 million.

[Red Knight]

288. Not exactly

The media played up that whole scream incident, made it a bigger blunder than it was(which was insignificant)and told people that it should matter.

The media tells people who to elect.

People listen.

It's that simple.

[Milo_Bloom]

321. Nope.

The scream had no effect on Dean on all. The media played it because it made people laugh.

Dean lost because he spent 40 million in Iowa and came in third.

[lakeguy]

361. nope, the media is squeeky clean, isn't it.

why, i remember when edwards was outspent nearly 6 to 1 in IA and managed to beat the front runner at the time in the polls and almost win the dang thing. next day, i was sure i would see or hear about this miraculous feat. didn't see edwards name on the front page of even ONE of the newspapers i browsed. 100% hillary (3rd) and obama (1st). don't have TV but i'm gussing he was barely mentioned there as well. maybe edwards should have screamed and made a funny.

about dean, the media replayed the scream hundreds of times. it was a distortion to even play it the way they did because you couldn't hear it if you were actually there. why would the media want to inaccurately portray a situation like that? because it was funny? did you find it funny? i sure didn't and i didn't even support the guy.

keep your head buried in the sand. meanwhile, people like Rather and others will fight the obvious corporate control of the media (and thus what news is or isn't reported) without the support of deniers like you. don't worry, you are in the vast majority and you will feel warm and comfy with the rest of the sheeple.

[Milo_Bloom]

371. NEver said they were squeeky clean... what I said is...

Edwards failure as a candidate has NOTHING to do with the media and that is the fact. Edwards losing Iowa wasn't big news coming in second wasn't big news. He lived there since 2003 and was expected to do well. In fact some thought he could win. He lost.


I was a HUGE Dean supporter and yes, I found the scream quite funny. I also don't think it influenced a single person's vote.

Dean was done the moment he took the bait in Iowa and spent all his money on one state, only to come in a very disappointing 3rd, far behind the leaders.


So, while you keep coming up for excuses as to why no one is paying attention to Edwards, I will continue in reality knowing that it isn't the message, but instead the messenger.

[Two Americas]

245. that's right

Exactly. You are correct.

Wealthy donors > media attention > public misinformation > voter's decisions > politician's who are friendly to wealthy donors

Yes. Exactly. I couldn't have described it better myself.

Big money players have bought our democracy, and are using that to radically change our government to suit the needs of the few at the expense of the many.

You are describing the problem, not the solution.

[Milo_Bloom]

247. Its not wealthy donors at all.

It is about the number of overall donors and amazingly it follows the totals raised pretty accurately

http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/donordems.asp?cycle=2008

Barack Obama has 62913 donors.
Clinton has 59403
Romney has 37323
Guiliani 37150
McCain 22994

THEN

Edwards with 21763


If Edwards had MORE DONORS (like Howard Dean did in 2004) he would have more money and more attention.

[2rth2pwr]

69. BAM! short and sweet, and right on. nt

[jaybeat]

90. Such a tough choice

Vote for someone who says the right things, and has a history of doing what he says he'll do (fighting for the middle class and others against corporate criminals)? And, who doesn't take contributions from corporations or lobbyists?

Or vote for either one of two someones who DON'T say anywhere CLOSE to the right things, and, when they do, speak in such general terms that you don't really know if what they're saying will amount to very much? (Especially given that they DO take donations from corporations and/or lobbyists.)

Oooooh! It's soooooooo hard to deciiiiiiiide! My braiiiiiiiiiin hurts!

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

"...its nothing more than people not trusting an empty suit who tells people what they want to hear, but doesn't have the record to back up his own rhetoric."

OK, good. NOW I know why Ronald Reagan LOST his last two runs for the Presidency by a landslide.

Or, I'm sorry, were you talking about Barak Obama?

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[Milo_Bloom]

142. A lot in here isn't true.

" Vote for someone who says the right things, and has a history of doing what he says he'll do (fighting for the middle class and others against corporate criminals)? And, who doesn't take contributions from corporations or lobbyists?"

This is NOT TRUE.

Edwards has taken money from the exact same sources as Obama, including Lobbyists, corporations, etc.

[amandabeech]

210. The last info on financial supporters showed Edwards getting $$ from plaintiffs' lawyers.

The same chart, with links, showed Clinton and Obama getting their money from financial institutions and health care corporations, from whom Edwards received very little.

Please provide a link to support the statement that you make in your last sentence.

[Milo_Bloom]

236. Here ya go...

Here are a list of his top donators

http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/contrib.asp?id=N00002283&cycle=2008

They include

Citibank
Goldman Sachs
Deutsche Bank AG


All corporations



If you follow this link you will see that John Edwards received 18,900 from Lobbyists

http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/select.asp?cycle=2008



Now you can follow the links in that website to find out lots of things... here is a brakedown I did before in another thread to show the sources of donations and the proportion of those donations. (excuse the direct cut and past)

The fact is John Edwards has taken money from EXACTLY the same sources as the other candidates, but to a lesser extent, because he has raised LESS MONEY. When you at it in proportion, it paints the real picturre. John Edwards is as in bed with these people as anyone.


Obama has raised 80 million. Edwards only 30 million.

Let's look at the industries. (all numbers from opensecrets.org)


Health Care

Barack Obama (D) 1.6% of his total
$1,330,743

John Edwards (D) 1.4 % of his total
$419,326


Insurance Industry

Barack Obama (D)
$390,513 .4% of his total


John Edwards (D)
$129,600 .4% of his total


Lobbyists

Barack Obama (D)
$76,859 .09% of his total


John Edwards (D)
$18,900 .06% of his total


Banks

Barack Obama (D)
$865,856 1% of his total


John Edwards (D)
$153,650 .5% of his total.

[amandabeech]

240. That's not news.

I'm much more impressed by the absolute numbers here, which aren't new, than the percentages. You won't convince me otherwise, so don't bother.

[Milo_Bloom]

242. Its not about news, it is about proving theclaim made was false.

The statement made was, "And, who doesn't take contributions from corporations or lobbyists?"

That statement is UNTRUE and PROVEN untrue with some very simple mouse clicks and research.

[amandabeech]

243. No one with any sense is going to believe that any of these candidates

will have received no money from what I would consider objectionable interests. I'm interested in who received less in the absolute sense. That's Edwards. More mouse clicks aren't going to change those numbers.

Give it a rest.

[Milo_Bloom]

246. I'll give it a rest when people and the candidate STOP LYING.

"And, who doesn't take contributions from corporations or lobbyists?"

This isn't true.

It isn't even close to true and it is so easy to prove untrue it is pathetic.


People want to know why Edwards isn't popular... here it is. It is because he is so desperate he will say anything people want to hear, no matter how easy it is to prove untrue.

That is why I, and obviously tons of other people don't trust him and wouldn't pull a level with his name on it.

[amandabeech]

249. Good grief.

It's too late and I'm thankfully too damned old to fuss with someone who doesn't know the difference between a lobbyist and a corporation's employees.

[Milo_Bloom]

250. Corporations can't give donations to any candidate.

They are given through lobbyists and employees.


So, by your spin, NO CANDIDATE TAKES MONEY FROM CORPORATIONS.

And Yes, John Edwards has taken money directly from Lobbyists too.

[RaleighNCDUer]

160. He has given us no reason to trust him.

Because he's been a proven liar SO many times.

:sarcasm:

Got anything to back that up?

[Milo_Bloom]

239. Yes, lots of things.

Let's start with his often told lie that he hasn't taken any money from Lobbyists or corporations, which is easily debunked by going to opensecrets.org and looking up the donations to his campaign.

Let's look at his tax plan and notice that it doesn't live up to his own rhetoric, as it still taxes money from income over capital gains (money earning money).

Or, you can just look at his voting record.


Whichever one floats your boat, they all prove him untrustworthy.

[JDPriestly]

217. Why in the world would you believe Obama or Hillary if you

don't believe Edwards? Obama and Hillary are the candidates of the system as it is. Neither of them had the courage to play by the public funding rules and get the corporations out of their campaigns. Edwards is the only one I trust to bring change.

[Milo_Bloom]

241. Because Edwards has a record I can refer to and a history of duplicity.

This progressive warrior, man of the people who supposedly spent his life fighting corporations voted for the Bankrupcy Bill (a HUGE gift to corporations)... limiting liability for nuclear power plants, free trade for China, not to mention the IWR, Patriot act, etc.

HIs own claim that he hasn't taken any money from lobbyists or corporations is untrue and easily debunked by taking a trip to opensecrets.org

I don't fully TRUST any of the candidates, however, I know who I absolutely can't trust and that is John Edwards and obviously, I am not alone.

[JDPriestly]

261. Free Trade for China -- was Clinton's bill.

That is why Edwards voted for it.

As for the IWR, Edwards has explained that he trusted Bush and feels he should have known better. A lot of Democrats voted for that.
As for the nuclear power plants, I think you are talking about the Yucca Mountain Bill. It merely authorized the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to accept and review an application for storing nuclear waste at that site. 15 Democrats voted for it. When the NRC reviewed the application, they discovered that the site was not appropriate and denied the application. If you recall, in the Nevada debate, Edwards explained that there was fraud involved.

I would be very surprised if Edwards, a plaintiff's attorney voted to limit liability of the nuclear industry. Please provide a link for that.

Here is what Edwards said about the Patriot Act during the 2004 campaign:

Q: Do you support revision or repeal of the PATRIOT Act?

EDWARDS: I support dramatic revision of the PATRIOT Act. The last thing we should be doing is turning over our privacy, our liberties, our freedom, our constitutional rights to John Ashcroft. First, the very notion that this administration can arrest American citizens on American soil, label them an enemy combatant, put them in prison, keep them there indefinitely-this runs contrary to everything we believe in this country. The notion that they are going to libraries to find out what books people are checking out, going to book stores to find out what books are being purchased. What we have to remember-and I will when I am president-is what it is we are supposed to be fighting for, what it is we are supposed to be protecting. These very liberties, this privacy, these constitutional rights-that's what's at stake in this fight. And we cannot let people like John Ashcroft take them away in an effort to protect ourselves.
Source: Congressional Black Caucus Institute debate Sep 9, 2003

Support the Patriot Act with rigorous review
Q: Would you revise or repeal the Patriot Act?

A: I supported the Patriot Act because it contained provisions needed to strengthen our security, but I also believe this administration has abused its powers in implementing the law. One key provision of the act requires Congress to revisit key provisions of the law. I opposed efforts to repeal that "sunset," and Congress must rigorously review the Patriot Act-as well as any new legislation-to see whether it advances our security and honors our values.
Source: MoveOn.org interview Jun 17, 2003

http://www.ontheissues.org/2004/John_Edwards_Civil_Rights.htm

[Milo_Bloom]

320. Here's your link.

Here is where the progressive warrior voted to limit liability for Nuclear Power Plants

http://www.mentata.com/ds/retrieve/congress/vote/VC107S14


The quotes you provided are pretty useless, because they came out of Edwards' mouth, which, as I have shown, is not a reliable place for information.

[JDPriestly]

325. Looks like 30 other Democrats voted with Edwards on this

bill. Hardly a right-wing position. I note that Dodd and Byrd supported the bill. It surprises me, but there may be something about the bill that we don't know. Dodd, Cleland, Graham, Byrd, Stabenow, Mikulski, Levin, etc. -- that is quite a list. I will try to get back to you on information on the other items later.

[Milo_Bloom]

336. Gotta love the excuses.

The other democrats jumped off a bridge so that makes it okay.

Almost all the other democrats voted for the patriot act as well... so that makes it okay.

[JDPriestly]

328. I don't know who you are for, but certainly the Clintons

could have done something on all these issues and did not. Obama has no record at all on most of these issues.

Edwards learns. Hillary does not. Obama -- who knows what he will do. He is a blank slate. You can write anything on him that you want. Of course, a blank slate does not contain contradictions or changes of view. But then, it doesn't contain much at all.As for Kucinich, he has great ideas, and he has done a good job on his campaign. But he has even less money than Edwards and no strong base of support. Edwards has the plaintiff's bar behind him as well as a lot of other progressives who like him. He has been able to raise a decent although not obscene amount of money. Edwards is a far more viable candidate than Kucinich.

[Milo_Bloom]

342. I just know who I am against.

Clinton and Edwards for the same reason. The fact that Edwards has changed his rhetoric means little, because he always claimed to fight corporations, but voted for bills that were little more than corporate gifts (China, Bankrupcy, etc.).

In a choice between a blank slate and a slate containing proof of lies and duplicity, I will take the blank slate, at least with the blank slate I am left with a chance. With Edwards, I know what I am going to get, someone who will not fight for the people he is using to try and get into office.

[JDPriestly]

360. You are wrong.

The majority of Democratic senators voted with Edwards on the bankruptcy bill. The China bill was Clinton's baby. Edwards voted against all the other trade agreements that were proposed.

[Milo_Bloom]

369. So you prove me right and then say I am wrong? LOL

Who voted for the bills with Edwards means nothing and whose baby a certain bill is means nothing, what matters is how the "progressive warrior" voted, which is against the interest of the individuals in favor of the interests of the corporations.


If Edwards has real political courage and real convictions, he would vote the right way, not the way he has to in order to appease the leadership.

[JDPriestly]

372. Look. Edwards is far more progressive than Obama or Hillary.

And realistically those are your choices.

[Milo_Bloom]

378. He SAYS he is, but he cannot be trusted.

[JDPriestly]

390. He is more trustworthy than Hillary who cannot answer a

question with any clarity and will owe her election to corporate lobbyists and party hacks. He is more trustworthy than Obama whose toughest election opponent was Alan Keyes and who has very relatively little experience in real life.

If Obama is so good at getting results from neotiating, why aren't Democrats achieving more in the Senate? Why isn't he leading the negotiations on some of the horrible things the Republicans are doing? His magic touch does not seem to be working there, does it?

I trust Edwards because at the very least he sees the key problem which is the recalcitrance of the Republicans and their corporate sponsors to do right by the American people. Neither Hillary nor Obama understands that is the central issue this year.

[Milo_Bloom]

396. Neat attempt at spin.

I don't trust Clinton any more than Edwards.... However, the basis upon which you are determining the "trustworthiness" of Obama is that he had an easy run in his Senate run and as for experience, Obama has far more political experience than Edwards.

I don't trust Edwards, because his duplicity is easy to document and there is absolutely no reason to believe he isn't just saying things that he think will get him the nomination.

Edwards has a lousy Senate history and post Senate history and nothing in his recent or distant past suggests he would come through on any of the promises he is making. In fact, all evidence points exactly the opposite way... which is why he is not doing well in the primaries, because most people know when they are being lied to.

[Kucinich4America]

37. This Kucinich supporter is happy to K&R this thread!

FUCK the DLC. And anyone "approved" by the DLC.

[liskddksil]

201. yep

Thats what Hillary and Obama are, DLC and DLC light.

[ecstatic]

38. I think all Democrats support Edwards' message; the problem with

his candidacy has always been a lack of trust. I'm sure many here agree with everything Edwards says but some of us have a hard time believing that he is sincere.

[jaybeat]

91. But you trust those two weasles, er, why, exactly? (nt)

[Critters2]

190. But you have no trouble believing these two are sincere?

:wtf:

[JDPriestly]

221. Edwards has fought corporations all his life.

Hillary and her husband have been taking money from corporations to run for one office or the other for how long now . . . . And she's really taking a lot of money this time.

The toughest candidate Obama has ever run against is Alan Keyes. And we are supposed to trust Hillary and Obama.

[LoZoccolo]

40. It is up to you to change peoples' minds.

That is your job in a participatory democracy.

[Tulkas]

42. an answer

***And, answer me this OBAMA SUPPORTERS. Do you REALLY think your new Republican buddies are going to reach across to President Obama, and try to find common ground with him, when Democrats try to implement a UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE PLAN?! REALLY??!!***


Yes.

The Democrats already hold a majority in The House and a 49-49 split in The Senate with the 2 independents caucusing with the Dems.

I believe an Obama candidacy will increase the democratic turnout more than an Edwards one would and FAR more than a Clinton one would.

This increased democratic turnout will help win congressional seats for us. We already are in a good position going into this election, with a high turnout we can win seats in places that would be considered "safe" for the Republicans under normal conditions.


The Republican "buddies" will need to cover their asses and not look like obstructionists when they are in the minority in both house.

Obama and his Republican "buddies" have a better chance of passing legislation than Clinton and her Republican "Enemies" or even than Edwards without any Republican help at all.

[zalinda]

81. Either you don't remember or weren't around

when Bill Clinton was elected. Not only did we have majorities in both houses, we had the Presidency.........now, where is our health care? The same thing will happen with Obama and the next Clinton in office. We still will be ignored. The will be no damn change at all from what it is now, none. And over the next 20 years, I will ignore all those bright young people voting for Clinton and Obama when THEIR jobs are outsourced.

How come everyone THINKS they know how it feels to be poor, or have cancer, or be disabled, or divorced or married, or whatever it is you haven't experienced. When you are experiencing those things, it is NOTHING like you imagined, it's much worse. And that's how I feel about Obama and Clinton, it's going to be much worse, than I could imagine.

zalinda

[Andrea]

121. Gosh

You said that so beautifully and you are so right. I really wish it wasn't that way.

[JDPriestly]

228. You are right. Bill was elected in 1992.

In 1994 Gingrich lead the Republicans to retake Congress. Gridlock ensued. And by 2000, many progressives were utterly disillusioned with the Democratic Party and voted for Nader because, after eight years, they believed that there was no difference between Democrats and Republicans. I disagreed and voted for Gore. The rest is history.

[RaleighNCDUer]

164. You are overlooking one point.

Republicans do not compromise. They don't work across the aisle. Any compromise with republicans means democrats doing what the republicans want.

In the past 25 years, how many things passed in congress because Dems reached across the aisle, and how many things were stopped cold because republicans refused to reciprocate? Republicans not only don't mind looking like obstructionists, they revel in it.

We need someone who is fully ready to go toe-to-toe with them, not reach out to them, not appease them, and certainly not agree with them.

[Krashkopf]

222. Kick

Excellent reply to Tulkus.

REPUBLICANS DON'T COMPROMISE . . . and there is NO WAY to find "middle ground" with them without selling out MAINSTREAM DEMOCRATIC ideals.

[JDPriestly]

232. NCevilDuer, you are so right.

The Republicans don't compromise. They won't even vote to require Bush to turn over documents to their own committees in Congress. You cannot work with Republicans. Edwards is the only candidate who understands that.

[JDPriestly]

225. Obama is not planning to institute universal health care.

His plan does not include about 15 million Americans. It is not mandatory.

[krabigirl]

44. I agree, but I actually don't see what people see in Obama.

I wish it was a Clinton-Edwards race, but it's not.

[Tulkas]

54. one example

Edwards and Clinton want to create a health care plan and require everyone participate in it.

Obama wants to create a health care plan that everyone will want to participate in.



The difference is that Obama puts the pressure on the government to create a plan that people will be happy with.

The others put the pressure on people to be happy with what the government decides on.



You can see this attitude throughout the campaign.

The LBJ/MLK thing.

Clinton (not Edwards, leaving him out of this one) made the point that LBJ signed legislation.

Obama praised the grass roots movement that made that legislation possible.



I don't know if I can make it any simpler.. Power to the government or Power to the people.
Establishment v. anti-establishment



Is any of this making sense?



EDIT.. Doh, more than one example.. sorry

[maxanne]

97. not really

all three of them have plans that will require that taxpayers subsidize insurance companies.

It's bad enough I'm paying for a war. I sure as hell don't want to be contributing to the CEO at CIGNA getting a million dollar bonus.

What we need is a single payer system, and none of the corporate candidates have the ovaries to stand up for the REAL national security issue in the US - our health.

[awaysidetraveler]

139. Are you aware of Hillary's healthcare lobbying scandals? She's taken .5 million from healthcare

... lobbyists so far this election. They're placing their bets on her for one reason: a single-payer system
will never be voted into effect. She's partially responsible for the health care failures of 1993 that left the system in the deplorable state it's in now.

I'd love to vote a woman into office, but not Hillary--not with all this health care lobbying money lining up behind her.
Please don't take my word for it, look up the information on www.opensecrets.org and then tell me what you think.

“We now face an opportunity — and an obligation — to turn the page on the failed politics of yesterday's health care debates… My plan begins by covering every American. If you already have health insurance, the only thing that will change for you under this plan is the amount of money you will spend on premiums. That will be less. If you are one of the 45 million Americans who don't have health insurance, you will have it after this plan becomes law. No one will be turned away because of a preexisting condition or illness.”

— Barack Obama, Speech in Iowa City, IA, May 29, 2007

[maxanne]

187. it doesn't change what I was saying

All three of them have crap plans.

Obama's plan will still require taxpayers to subsidize insurance companies - that's how the people who can't afford insurance will get insurance.

[JDPriestly]

233. Obama does not understand.

We need universal health care. If someone chooses not to get health insurance and then becomes very ill, who do you think pays for their care in the end? Everybody does. That is why you need universal health care.

Hospitals do not turn people away from the emergency room. They take them in and bill them. The hospital tries to collect the bill, but if the person really can't pay, the hospital eventually takes a loss. Well, they say they take a loss. In reality, they don't take a loss, they raise the prices other people have to pay to cover the money they could not collect.

Making sure everyone is insured is important because the uninsured people who cannot pay for their own care and can only get care by going to the hospital emergency room often could stay out of the emergency room if they could afford to have preventive care. Emergency room care for uninsured people with conditions that could be treated or prevented by regular doctor's visit is a tremendous waste of resources.

Obama's plan is a non-starter. It won't work.

[zulchzulu]

57. I could say the same exact thing about Edwards

[Tulkas]

59. then why

does he require participation in his health care plan? He is with Hillary on that one

[zulchzulu]

133. I understand...

...your frustration.

I want Single Payer a la Medicare For All. For the price of a couple top shelf Stealth Bombers, we could have that in this country.

I am also politically realistic. To get healthcare reform passed in the next couple years, in my view, it's going to have to be with working with the healthcare insurance and pharma industries and calling them on it when they don't want to play fair. Legislation absolutely needs to be passed in a bipartisan way while NOT giving away the store in the process. It is doable. It is also incremental. That's just the way it is.

To say you can pass healthcare insurance that is "universal" and also mandated (i.e. forced) in these political times is not an honest assessment in my view. It will never happen. Years will pass without nothing getting done except political theater on both sides. This is exactly what the healthcare and pharma industries want. Divide and conquer.

If we meet them face to face and televise the conflagration and eventually get to a point where universal healthcare is feasible, then we can move to the next steps which will lead to Medicare For All.

Hillary's plan is a lot like Obama's plan, which is a lot like Edwards' plan for the most part. The difference is individual mandates on the Clinton and Edwards side. Mandated healthcare that doesn't realistically address the problems of affordability and the gamesmanship of dropping coverage when it is convenient is not going to pass legislatively nor will it even be able to be mandated.

[Tulkas]

149. It was just an example

My point was that Edwards and Clinton will mandate something that the government passes, removing options from individuals.

Obama will allow individuals to decide for themselves.


It is a basic philosophical difference between Obama and all other candidates regardless of party.




Also in the long term, I believe more pressure will be applied to the government to keep the system the best possible if people can opt out, or not sign up at all.

If you MUST join and can't leave (unless you can afford something even better) then the system will stagnate and eventually decay through bureaucratic neglect.

[sandyd921]

205. If people can opt out

it is not going to be cost-effective. You will tend to have the sickest, most expensive people participating and the younger, healthy people least likely to be part of the pool of people covered. This is really very basic economics. I am very puzzled why Obama and his followers fail to grasp this. To me this is just another example of the fuzzy kind of thinking and solutions we get from repubs. It is not what I expect from a progressive Democrat.

[Tulkas]

248. You fell for the reverse logic

Reverse logic is, by definition, the reverse of logic.


This is about people who want medical insurance. Edwards and Clinton have reversed it and have you talking about people who don't want medical insurance. In My Opinion THIS IS THE FUZZY THINKING !!

I understand your point, it is a good one. You want the young healthy people who are less likely to need medical insurance to pay into the program so that it can pay for the people who need more attention.

It makes sense in a purely economic sense. There are a few things it does not take into account.

First, There will be taxpayer funds supporting the program. People who don't want insurance will still be contributing, assuming they pay taxes.

Second, The very poor will not be able to pay at all. It will be fully taxpayer funded. (I believe Medicaid falls into this category already.) Those who can afford private health care will, mostly, opt out of the government program. We simply need a reasonable progression of participant insurance premiums from those unable to pay to those who opt out for private programs.

Third, We live in a free country (or at least did until a few years ago). There are some people who won't want the medical insurance because of their faith. Why should a Quaker living in Ohio with a horse and buggy be paying for the same insurance when he/she will not allow many modern procedures to be done to himself/herself. I am sure there are other examples of people who will refuse some procedures biased on their beliefs, although I can't think of good ones at the moment. Some "New-Age I rather meditate and drink herbal teas" kinda people must be out there somewhere. Anyways, I consider the mandate a limitation of personal freedoms.

Fourth, Obama's plan does require minors to be covered. I know, I know....A MANDATE !!! Yes, a mandate. Minors have limitations placed on their personal freedoms already. In this case the well being of the minor is the priority. This means that we will raise a generation of people who have always had health care. Turning 18 and deciding to opt out should decrease with time. I honestly believe that people who have always had proper medical attention will not want to lose it.

Fifth, There are penalties if someone does not have coverage and then needs medical attention. We can't just let people die because they made the mistake of dropping coverage, but we can increase their premiums accordingly once they do need attention. These penalties should be high enough to recover any lost revenue for the time they were not covered.

Sixth, Enforcing a mandate will require some type of "insurance police". You need to pay these people, diverting funds out of the system that could go to care for the ill.


There are other lesser reasons but I doubt anyone will read everything I took the time to type already.

Just for the record, I consider myself a left leaning moderate, not a progressive (if I understand your term properly)

[sandyd921]

296. I consider myself a liberal progressive

and so were most of the founders of this nation. There is a very quaint idea among people of my ilk, that we are all in this together, the idea of "we the people", that was well accepted for a long time. These libertarian ideas of "personal freedom and f__k the rest of you came along much later. I am very much afraid that they will be the death knell of real progress in this nation. Remember "united we stand, divided we fall"? This applies to every aspect of the crisis we are now in (and not just health care). Coming back to this basic premise of our nation is what got us through the "Great Depression" of the 1930's and is what we have to go back to now if we are to survive as a nation, the hard times that are coming and to prosper once again in the future.

This argument of an "insurance police" is not valid. This is not a problem in the many other civilized nations that have done the logical thing and adopted a universal system. Have you ever heard of this being a problem in this country with auto insurance? I certainly have not.

BTW, as a liberal progressive, I very much resent the fact that under this system you and Obama tout, I would end up paying for people who choose not to be part of the system and who end up in a serious accident or with an unanticipated major illness (life is unpredictable, even for the "young and healthy"). Unless, of course you are proposing that as a society we just let them go die somewhere without treatment.

[JDPriestly]

234. Edwards is not taking health care lobbyists' money.

No way. Edwards plan forces private insurers to compete with a Medicare style plan. That is the way to move toward single payer insurance. Edwards will end the excessive salaries for insurance company executives. That is key. Edwards will not allow insurance companies to refuse to cover certain conditions or procedures.

[Pierogi_Pincher]

253. I agree w/ JD.

>>Edwards plan forces private insurers to compete with a Medicare style plan. THAT IS THE WAY TO MOVE TOWARD SINGLE PAYER INSURANCE.<<
This train of thought was submitted by a poster a ways back on this subject. Do the move toward single payer incrementally, so to speak.
I finally settled on going w/ J.E. in the primary, but will not be averse to voting for Barack in the GE.
P_P
edit for tyyppo

[JDPriestly]

319. Thanks.

[awaysidetraveler]

61. Clinton represents lobbying interests, and Edwards does not. Clinton=lobbying corruption.

Edwards or Obama = Change

[Tulkas]

94. True, but misleading

Again

Edwards believes in forcing people to join a health care system that the government creates. This takes the pressure off of the government to create the best system possible.

Obama won't force anyone to join anything they don't think is good enough. This puts the pressure on the government to create the best system possible.



Edwards won't take lobbyist money, I can respect that. He still has the wrong attitude toward how things should be run.


(Edwards is my 2nd choice)

[awaysidetraveler]

146. Interesting, I've got a Hillary voter who could use to hear that argument.

I prefer Obama as well, though I'd most prefer to see an Obama-Edwards victory.

We've got to work on these Hillary voters, I don't know what they're thinking.

[zalinda]

170. Edwards does not force you into any plan

First of all, mandated health care won't come into play until the majority of people are taken care of. You may chose a private plan or a public plan, and there are many private plans to choose from. Second, you do have to have it mandatory or people who think they are healthy won't sign up for it, next thing you know, they get cancer. Now, do you make them pay for their treatment, or do you make everyone else who has been paying all along pay for their treatment? Or do you let them die because they were too stupid or selfish to pay into the health pool?

zalinda

[Cronopio]

181. Please do your homework on Edwards' proposal, Tulkas.

Edwards' plan does NOT force anyone to join a government health care system. If you want to be insured by a private insurer, you are perfectly free to do so.

Everyone would have to pay a portion of your taxes to support the government system, but no more than you already do for Medicare. Edwards' plan is tax-neutral - it would be paid by rescinding Bush's tax cuts for the wealthy.

[Tulkas]

202. phrased poorly... sorry... still accurate if placed in context

You will be forced to carry insurance. If you can afford private insurance then yes, you can opt for that instead of the government plan.


My point was poorly phrased and I should have been more clear, sorry for that.


My point is also still valid, you must carry insurance. If you limit the discussion to people who can't afford private insurance then everything I said is accurate.


I don't want to get into the funding part of it. I don't have a problem with his plan on that point. I have a problem with the pressure being put onto people to sign up or be punished. If you make a program good enough you won't need to force people to sign up.

Also, in the long term. More pressure will be placed on the government to keep the plan up to date if it is not mandatory. Government programs tend to stagnate and decay under the bureaucratic pressures over time. Mandatory enrollment removes any incentive to improve the plan after it has been enacted (until it reaches catastrophic failure stage).

[amandabeech]

215. My experience with private insurance does not support your views.

Coverage in private plans deteriorate over time as well, believe me, as does the service. However, the returns to investors and the bonuses to executives somehow do not.

Please explain your economic philosophy and any credentials that you have in that field. Your statements sound very much like you have more than a passing interest in the field, and sound quite conservative for a DU poster.

[Tulkas]

223. Exactly

*again I am limiting the discussion to people who can't afford private health care*

Coverage deteriorates over time even in private plans. With private plans you can always switch providers, and still the service deteriorates. Think how bad a government plan could be if participation was mandatory. Look at the fraud that plagues Medicare!

The only philosophical point I am trying to make in this thread concerns the candidates in question.



Edwards and Clinton will require people to accept whatever the government passes. People will have no recourse other than to try and vote someone else into office that will do a better job. (why not vote someone into office that will do a better job to begin with?)

Obama will attempt to create a plan that everyone who can't afford private insurance will want to be included in. If we still have a problem not being able to insure people then the government will need to look at, and possibly improve the program.


I believe that forced participation is the wrong approach, in both the short run and more importantly in the long run also.

My only true credentials in the field is that I lost medical insurance when I left a job in 2003, and went uninsured until about 8 months ago.


As far as sounding conservative for a DU poster, that is a very astute observation. I consider myself a left leaning moderate. I consider most of the posters here out on the fringe.

[amandabeech]

237. I'm not particularly astute; you are just extremely obvious here.

I would consider you a right-leaning moderate if that, especially after your use of the phrase "socialized medicine." It's a code term that is easily recognized. Or perhaps you are a libertarian, since you seem to hate government, when most democrats view it rather more favorably. Frankly, I'm surprised that no one has called you out.

As to your statement, "With private plans, you can always switch providers," does not obtain in the present day and there is no empirical evidence to suggest that even if it were possible in theory to switch, meaning that one's selection of providers would remain the same, private plans would be that much better. At least with a government plan, one can change the governors. Since mutual insurance has been destroyed by the greed that orginally was unleashed by Reagan, insureds have no control over those who set the terms of the plans, and they often appear to act in collusion.

As to your comments on Medicaid/Medicare fraud, I suggest that you pay more attention to the problems of the publicly-traded insurance companies, not only in connection with the denial of claims and the ability of providers to game insurance companies as well, but also with respect to the investments made with the policy premiums.

As to your claim that Obama will develop an insurance program that people will be lining up to get into, witness the number of people who do not sign up for SCHIPS, despite the good coverage and great prices that program affords. People would rather gamble with their childrens' health rather than spend the money each month. Why do you think that Las Vegas is so popular? And those gamblers, whom many voters will consider to be cheaters, will be the bane of Obama's system, and cause people to replace him with someone who will come up with a system that is fair to all.

The government requires you to do or to refrain from doing lots of things. So do employers, who republicans let run rough-shod over everyone. Putting up with living with both is the cost of living in a large, heterogeneous and complex society. Obama's not going to change that. Ron Paul might, so I suggest that you check out him and the libertarians.

Me, I'm older, have health problems, can't get coverage through my employer, can't find a better job due to holes in resume caused by health problems, and have some real problems in life.

[Tulkas]

252. wow

I said socialized medicine because that is what it was called at the time, any other term is revisionist history.

As for switching private plans...are you telling me you can't go from one insurance company to another? I believe you are wrong. In fact my employer is switching my insurance to Blue Cross in the next few months. You can switch, honestly it can be done.


Medicare fraud exists, it is a huge problem. I was just using it for an example of problems with government run programs that have existed for decades and are not scrutinized properly.

As for denial of benefits from private insurers, I agree completely. I never said there are not problems with private insurance.

S-CHIPS .. are you for real?? This is insurance for children in families who earn to much for Medicaid. Do you honestly believe that people don't want to provide insurance for their CHILDREN? This plays to my point, there is no pressure on the government to improve the system. It seems obvious to me that people would buy into S-CHIPS if the cost was in line with what they could afford. If you don't believe me then go ask people with children if they would like their children to have coverage.


Also, how are you going to enforce your mandate? Insurance Police? How are you going to pay them? Pull funds out of the system that could be helping the ill?

As for the libertarians, I think they are idiots. I am not as fiscally conservative nor am I as socially liberal as they are. Again I consider myself a left leaning moderate.

I am sorry about your health problems and your job. I myself am about to turn 45 and went from early 2003 to mid 2007 without insurance also. I can sympathies with your dilemma. Unfortunately I don't believe that gives you the right to force people into a program they don't want.

I have another longer and more in depth post as a res pone just a few links above this one. Trying to debate two people on the same subject is a bit confusing at 3:00 am. Please move this discussion to the other link if you care to respond.

[Andrea]

408. Just want to point out one obvious inaccuracy

In the vast majority of cases, you cannot switch plans. Your employer can switch plans, but you can't. If an employer switches plans, it is to benefit the employer, not the insured employee. The employee is stuck.

[Cronopio]

391. Your context is inaccurate.

It isn't that you will be forced to carry insurance, it's that medical coverage will be made available to you no matter what. If you are too poor to afford your share of the financial burden of the government-run system, under Edwards' plan you will get tax credits to make up the shortfall. Not tax deductions - credits. You will get more money from the government than you pay in in taxes.

The tax credit idea has some legitimately arguable issues that go along with it - there are better mechanisms than tax credits - but the main point is that the party that is being coerced is the government, not you. The government *will* provide health care if you can't afford it, in the same way that the government will provide legal representation to you in a criminal case if you can't afford it. Dr. Johnnie Cochran may give you better representation, but you won't be mortgaging your grandchildren's future to pay for your chemotherapy.

[truedelphi]

381. very concise and well put explanation

Hillary doesn't at all mention the middle income people needing relief.

Instead she blithely thinks that the middle incomed person can continue to pay high taxes and then pay out of pocket for her health insurance mandate. Part of it is her need to placateher corporate sponsors, many of them insurance companies. Those people want their executives to continue to make more money than god.


Edwards' plan would get rid of the middle man. We would no longer have insurance executives whose take home pay is the equivalent of all 2200 employees of a local hospital, as is now the case.

health care needs, insurance wise, would immediately be 20 to 40 per cent cheaper. Without paying those insurance people and all their assistants, and underwriters etc.

[bobbolink]

46. You're voicing what I've been feeling for a very long time, now.

As I said in another thread, I think we're singing "Aloha Oi" to the nation... the swan song is cueing up.

:cry:

[Laelth]

48. Hear, hear!

I continue to hope that candidate Obama is lying. I hope he's a true liberal who will enact liberal policy when elected. I hope he's playing the middle like a fiddle. I'll be very disappointed if he's being honest.

:dem:

-Laelth

[MasonJar]

51. Edwards is fabulous, but I think that it is not about him. I think that the country

is ready for change in a different way than Edwards could ever accomplish. America is finally ready for a woman or a black president. Edwards is young. He can win in the future if he does not come back this time. Or he might even find like Al Gore that there are many more important needs in our shattered world than can be answered by being the president of declining way of life.

[zalinda]

95. And because a woman and a black man is running

we are supposed to vote for them instead of the best candidate? What a reason to vote for someone! Forget that this country needs someone to wrestle them from the grips of the oil companies, the pharmaceutical companies, the 6 companies who OWN ALL the media, the companies who are sending our jobs overseas, no, just vote for the woman or black man, because......well, damn, it's time.

Here's what I learned from my uncle, a fireman. He was worried about affirmative action in the fire department, not because of a woman or a black man would step in front of a white guy. He was worried because his life would depend on this person being qualified, and not promoted just because the fire department "was finally ready for a woman or a black fireman". This next President has my life in his hands, and I don't want a "woman or black President, because America is finally ready", I want one who has my back and won't let me drown. Neither Obama nor Clinton is that President.

zalinda

[Yael]

99. Well stated.

[sandyd921]

96. No, it's not about Edwards and it's also not about

being "ready for a woman or a black president". Those are fine and very desirable goals, however right now our people and our country are in a dire situation that many do not seem to take very seriously. We are in a fight against the corporate/neo-fascist forces that control almost every aspect of our lives. We need a president who truly understands this and is prepared to do battle with these forces not a president who will compromise with the very forces that have overtaken us.

[mrbluto]

341. When you have a broken leg....

...you don't really care what race or gender the doctor is.

This country needs a doctor as far as I can tell.

Hilary and Obama, while not merely waving around band-aids, they don't sound to me like they're going to get to the root of the problem: Corporate Power.

If they can't even name the problem we all know is there then how much change can we expect from them?

Edwards is calling it LIKE I SEE IT. I think he's calling it like we all see it. That's what matters.

While in the long run race and gender issues need to be worked on and in the long run are what need to be fixed.

If we don't do something about corporate power there won't be a next election for any practical purpose. You won't get a chance to work toward other goals, solve other problems, if you can't talk amongst yourselves, meet freely, be secure in your papers and person.

Why will Hilary or Obama even start to address the main challenge if they won't even name it? Is this the tried and true strategy of not dignifying your opponent's scurrilous attacks and tactics? WAKE UP and SMELL the COFFEE! The Republicans don't seem to care about decorum and civility unless it presents it self as a wrench to throw into their opponent's deliberations.

Are Hilary and Obama laying low regarding their plans to thwart corporate distortion of our system and intend to change the system from the inside? Sure they are. Want to buy a bridge?

--------------

I'm sure we all agree that the triangulating passive game the democrats have been playing for the past decade plus is a loser strategy, one that Corporate power would love us to keep playing.

I'm sick of watching my supposed representatives petition for me to have gender & race neutral shackles.

No! Given essential freedoms those issues will get ironed-out anyway. Without essential freedoms we're screwed regardless. This election throw the red state idiots a sop and nominate a southern white guy - don't give them an excuse to vote republican, don't hand republican operatives the only remaining juicy chance for them to thwart the will of the general population yet again. Have such a blow-out election with such massive coat-tails that we can overcome the repugs and their sophomoric deliberation terminating tactics without wasting precious time to do so. Given a term or two of that we can go back to our normally scheduled program: wrestling with inequities in wealth, racial prejudice, and sexist discrimination. i.e. the hard work that we need to do carefully when there isn't a coup attempt in progress.

Time to change the game.

Time to apply some punitive measures to those who game the system.

Time for a corporate death penalty! (3 strikes then it's total receivership)

No more cheat and retreat!

No more free coup attempts!

Time for Edwards.

[Andrea]

409. Fantastic post!

I am in complete agreement. You lay it on the line - the real stakes in this election. This deserves it's own thread. this is what we all need to be scared to death about. Please consider posting this as a thread of it's own.

[Colobo]

52. John Edwards is probably one of those great men

that the country didn't deserve to have as president. People are choosing who they are choosing.

[zulchzulu]

55. Dude... here's a clue. It's. Not. Over. Yet.

Get your butt down to the nearest Edwards campaign HQ and get on the horn and get on the street. Turn your rage into passion for your candidate. Now!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[awaysidetraveler]

60. A reply from an Obama supporter. No, you are right

Republicans will not attempt to find a common ground with Obama on health care. They will fight him to
the end on that issue. However, I believe that Obama will fight the fight that issue.

This is Barak Obama's plan in his own words: "My plan begins by covering every American. If you already have health insurance, the only thing that will change for you under this plan is the amount of money you will spend on premiums. That will be less. If you are one of the 45 million Americans who don't have health insurance, you will have it after this plan becomes law. No one will be turned away because of a preexisting condition or illness."

Hillary has already failed to deliver on health care, and no small amount of that is due to the lobbying money she accepts from the health care industry.

I hope you will join Obama's team at some point, which I would for Edwards at this point. We must have a candidate who does not accept the money of major lobbying interests, and who promises to pull us out of Iraq as fast as is humanely possible.

Edwards is a fine candidate. Best of luck.

[ToeBot]

64. Want to get rid of the DLC? Quit supporting their candidates.

But you've already conceded, you're going to hold your nose and vote for them anyway.

[Yael]

100. Ding Ding Ding!!!

[natrat]

66. democratic party is complete bullshit head to toe-if you don't recognize that now you won't ever

[mistertrickster]

122. Really? why don't you vote Republican then? Or better yet, get involved and organize

for a better Democratic party right now.

That is what I have done since Bush stole the election in 2000.

It does wonders for one's mental health.

[vanboggie]

71. Boggles the mind, doesn't it Krash

I'm angry as hell, too. I wonder who I've been fighting the broken system with all these years. John Edwards isn't out of this game yet. I see nothing in Hillary and Obama but more of the same, and if I have to, I will officially check out of the progressive movement after writing Edwards in as a write in for the GE. Then I'm done since the USA will be toast.

I have a sister in law who is a lifelong Dem like me. If Edwards doesn't get the nomination, she's going to vote for the other side. This is a woman who still has Kerry/Edwards stickers on her vehicle. It's not an issue of gender or race, but this is our last chance to pull our country back from the corporations. Fascism has sucked in most of our party.

[zalinda]

102. I'm with you

I've voted in every election since I could vote, and I'm 60 now. But, if Edwards isn't the nominee, I'm out. I will become one of those who doesn't give a shit about the government, because it won't matter. I'm tired of hitting my head against the wall.

Say, our country is like a Katrina house, Edwards is saying that we have to get rid of the mold, fix the roof, find out if the electricity works, check the plumbing, you know, make sure that the foundation is sound. Along comes Obama and Clinton and they say, hey if you just paint or put up curtains, everything will be okay. And, people are falling for this? Damn! It's just going to get worse, nothing will change. The working poor will always get the shaft.

zalinda

[vanboggie]

134. Excellent comparison, zalinda

Zalinda, that's a wonderful comparison between John Edwards and the other candidates.

It appears you and I both came of age in the 60's. We lived through JFK's, RFK's, MLK's assassinations. We fought for women's rights and thought Nixon was as bad as a President could get. Little did we know it wouldn't be Khrushchev who would bury us, but that our country would die from within. I'm almost sorry I lived long enough to witness the last throes. The dumbing down of America is complete, we have few voices in the media, and Fascism is firmly entrenched. To think our generation was going to make the world better.

We put up a long hard fight, my friend. Here's to us :toast: and the last candidate willing to stand up for us.
I think it was that wise Jesus guy who said "they know not what they do."

vanboggie

[leftcoastie]

151. Right on!

I agree completely, zalinda. My wife and I are in our 50's & 60's and are so tired of having the best candidate blown by smaller state primaries only to get the lesser of two evils. I hate the DLC and what it stands for. The road is paved toward another's 60's type revolt of people in streets at some point in the next 2 decades. The middle class that are voting for the DLC candidates are flushing their interests down the sewer. But the one thing we can do is agitate anyone who is elected for progressive values...and let's not forget the supreme court, the DLCers may not be as bad, but they just might get more "corporations are people" justices on the bench. NOT happy times.

[2hip]

258. You expressed my sentiments EXACTLY!

If we don't elect Edwards, I'm done. My belief in real Democracy will be shattered by the confirmation that the System really IS rigged against us. I'm in your age bracket and I see no point in Fighting the Good Fight if the outcome is pre-determined at the onset. Fighting to get Edwards elected will be my Last Hurrah.



              Edwards '08 tees!

[mother earth]

292. Zalinda, I feel exactly as you do. I've been a dem my entire life,

but today I am so sick of the BS all of us are accepting including when MSM and big money interests tell us who the frontrunners are.

The only person who is representing our values and who will fight for us is Edwards. I am not going to vote for anyone else but Edwards, if that means I must write his name in come the pres. election, so be it. So be it!!!! I haven't seen or heard anything from Obama or Clinton to convince me I wouldn't be wasting my vote if I spent it on them.

I'm tired of being screwed and I'm not going to accept a dem simply because they are a dem.
So, with what limited power I have, I'm with Edwards until the end. Some people won't wake up until they are in a soup line.

[ChiciB1]

317. Gotcha... Same Age... Same Feeling... Posted Above!! nt

[Caseman]

79. The one weakness of a democratic government...

...A country filled with idiots. I agree with your rant...

[xiamiam]

80. righteous rant..and how ive been feeling as i watch the media manipulate this election and choices

because in my mind i dont have a choice...the only one who even begins to speak the truth, walk the walk, and is truly about change is kucinich...but people say he's too short, or has seen a ufo or something else equally as stupid..and the media has marginalized him much as they've done to edwards..so we're stuck with no choice actually...just the choice that was my worst fear...im in northern california, and i swear, i have yet to meet a hillary supporter...which is why im always baffled by the support here on such a progressive site...just more manipulation is what i've told myself...it will be interesting to see what happens in a truly progressive part of the country..but i seriously doubt that hillary will make any headway here...

[Andrea]

136. regarding HRC voters

I live in Columbus (solidly blue - we went 73% for Kerry in spite of the strong efforts to disenfranchise all of us inner city voters), and I'd had the same experience as you. Neither I, nor any of my friends knew anyone who supported her. We were mystified. Then I went out canvassing for our mayoral election this fall. I went to an ordinary neighborhood and met ordinary people - not the tuned-in, informed, issues-obsessed types that you and I are, most DUers are, all my friends are. Tons of them were for HRC. None of them had any real substantive reasons. They just said things like, "She's really smart" and "I've always liked her". I'd bring up Edwards and they'd generally say something along the lines of "I like him, too, but I'm for Hillary". They couldn't state any reasons. These people don't know anything about shredded civil liberties, election-tampering, the Kyl-Lieberman amendment or anything else. At best, they vote their pocketbook. Generally, they vote their gut. With no issues to guide them, they are like a kite without a tail being blown around by the media, their buddies at work, and their bartender. And these were all Dems or Independents - we weren't going to any R houses. It's truly weird how people can just passively accept whatever they are spoon fed and not dig in to get any facts for themselves.

BTW, as I was canvassing for our mayoral race, I was not bringing up the presidential election. The people I talked to were bringing it up to me. Lots of them were completely unaware that we were having a mayoral election this past fall. When I introduced myself as a Dem volunteer, they assumed I was there about the presidential election. Some even said, "I thought the election was next year", as though they weren't certain when it was being held and since I MUST have been there about the presidential election, it MUST have been happening in '07. I mean, how uninformed can people be? I was appalled by it.

[bpeale]

83. and from this Edwards supporter

if Edwards does not make it, this will be the first election since i turned 21, thats 40 years, that i will not cast a ballot for president. that people continually vote AGAINST their own best interests, even after 8 yrs of Bush, just plain disgusts me.

it's starting to look like it will be at least 8 more years after 2009 before people get the healthcare they need, at least 8 more years of unending debt with no relief thru bankruptcy, at least 8 more years before we think about getting out of iraq, at least 8 more yrs that our vets will be going to sleep under bridges or on grates.

i'd like to say that we are better than this, but apparently we are not. 47 million are currently in poverty. how many more will be there in 8 more years? in 8 more years will the middle class even be here anymore? i don't think so.

say what you will. the supreme court won't matter in 8 yrs because all those powers that gwb has amassed will NEVER be overturned. our rights will never be returned to us. our constitution will officially be dead and so will america. there will never be any justice for the american people. there will never again be a rule of law to worry about. we will be officially the next Russia. i will be getting my passport because i don't intend on living in this country and will, in fact, be able to live a better life abroad.

[SoDesuKa]

85. Edwards is Nothing Special

I don't recall that Edwards stood for much of anything before he ran for President. When it might have been politically expensive to vote against the war in Iraq, he didn't do it. Repositioning himself as the change candidate sounds suspiciously like arbitrary product differentiation. Frankly, he seems like another ho-hum white guy who sells whatever the voters are buying.

[incapsulated]

251. shhhh....

Don't interrupt the cry and blame fest for the Hero that America doesn't deserve.

[Two Americas]

384. that is true

It may well be true that Edwards is nothing special.

Who is looking for someone special?

This is not about Edwards the guru, the idol, the celebrity, the personality, the savior, or the most charismatic.

This is about the one person, flawed or whatever, who is delivering a particular message. Feel free to find a better person, or to be that person, who will deliver that message.

On the other hand, if it is the message itself you oppose, you should be forthright about that.

I think it is time that every Democrat "reposition themselves" as champions of the have-nots and as fighters against corporate domination of our lives and against rule by the few over the many.

Anyone who sees that as "arbitrary product differentiation" is talking about politics as though it were an exercise in corporate marketing. Edwards probably is not very good at that, especially compared to the other candidates, and the path he is taking is no doubt much more risky had all he been interested in was packaging and selling himself as a product for the public to buy.

Someone pointed out today that my username comes from Edwards 2004 campaign. So much for the persistent lie that he has re-invented himself to make himself a more attractive package.

[brentspeak]

388. "Another ho-hum white guy..."

I don't normally accuse other posters of making racist comments, but there's always exceptions.

[sandyd921]

87. Bulls eye!

You have it!

Folks who understand what is going on inside our party might also want to check out this diary on Kos:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/1/19/13526/3690

[Yael]

103. Read and bookmarked. That was excellent!

Especially loved this, "Obama wants us to be his champions, but he doesn't want to be ours."

[Krashkopf]

108. Thanks for the link . . .

thatTRIANGULATING DLC bullshit is the reason why the Democratic-led Congress has even lower approval ratings than Bush! It might win the next election, but it is going to mean the death of a truly democratic, Democratic party.

[ChiciB1]

316. Gee, I Think I Just Wrote Something Similar To That... Al thought Not

as well done! That was "spot on" and so WELL DONE! Thanks for the link... so glad to hear those words from others LIKE ME! I myself will sit out the GE! I see no difference... it will be more of the same.

Game's about over for me.

[krkaufman]

89. I am similarly dismayed, and commend your closing thoughts ...

... regarding holding of the nose.

The fight for change doesn't end when our nominee is selected, or even when a Dem enters the White House, should we be so lucky. I think the Dem grassroots sat back a bit too much during the Clinton years, and that mistake must not be repeated.

[Krashkopf]

101. I'll never "sit back"

I'll be HARDER on the next, Democratic, President than I was on Bush . . . and I have been brutally honest, and hard, on him.

[krkaufman]

112. In agreement. n/t

[sandyd921]

115. I hope that committed Edwards supporters

are prepared to fight on no matter the outcome of this election! It should be pretty clear to all of us, if it wasn't before, that we are in for an epic fight for both our party and our country!

[krkaufman]

196. Yeppers. We need to wrest at least one party back from corporate control...

... and I think we have a better chance with the Dems than the Rethugs. (Though some of the fight may entail support for third party candidates and independents to put pressure on the Corpo wing of the Dem Party, where such moves don't simply ensure election of Rethugs.)

[7horses]

104. This is why it matters...

The media is picking the nominee for the Democratic party. The media is throwing support behind the two weakest candidates; that will have a hard time beating the Republican nominee, which ever one of the Bush clones win. Wake up people! The media sure did a job on Edwards... now I wonder why the media is pushing only the top two candidates? I don't believe those polls, but something is wrong when Edwards polls at 27% and only gets 4% of the vote! Can they be off that much? If so, then 'they' need to be held accountable. Lets do away with polls!!!

Anyway, Edward will stay in the race.

Oh and congratulations to Hillary.

[Tulkas]

105. The one who promised to fight....

Is this really change?

Don't we fight enough already? Does our government do anything but fight with each other?

Yes, we want someone who will try to unite instead of divide, we consider that real change.

Even though Edwards will fight for what we all believe is best, people who lose fights tend to keep coming back. Backlash, have you heard of it?

Maybe, just Maybe, expanding the base to include moderates is the correct change. Maybe the middle ground is the firmest.

Maybe we don't need to fight.


I believe Sung Su wrote in "The Art of War" The greatest victories are those that ..... well, I forget the exact quote.


(KIDDING, I KID!!!!)

anyways you get the point

[zalinda]

171. You don't get the point

The first Clinton White House, had a majority of dems in both houses, but didn't pass health care, which they PROMISED us that we would get. Both Obama and Clinton are CAREER politicians, they have been living their whole life to get to this exact place in history. They know where the money is and how to get it if they want to stay in their position. Edwards hasn't done that. He had a very successful law career, he never gave a serious thought to politics until his son died. He thought he could change things when he got into the Senate (a campaign in which he basically paid for himself). He went up agains a long time repub named Jesse Helms, in a red state, and won. He saw first hand what DC was like and tried to work within the system, he hated it, because he had to be someone he wasn't.

If you haven't read it, here's an interview with Mudcat Saunders, one of the campaign managers working for Edwards http://www.mensvogue.com/business/politics/interviews/articles/2007/06/david_mudcat_saunders

Here's a small sample:

MEN'S VOGUE: Some people give Edwards grief because he's rich and he wants to talk about the poor.

SAUNDERS: Oh, I've gotten that for sure. It's like Harry Truman said, "The president of the United States is the lobbyist for the regular people." It drives me berserk when someone says that Johnny's a wuss or something. Let me tell you something, John Edwards is one tough son of a bitch.

MEN'S VOGUE: Did you have a fight with him or something?

SAUNDERS: No, I just know him. Look at his track record. He's born poor as a church mouse. And his dad works up a little bit so by the time he gets out of school, he's pretty much middle class even though he didn't have much. So he decides he's going to earn a football scholarship at Clemson University, so he goes down there and he's one of these Rudy guys and he gets the absolute dog crap beat out of him. The guy is quicker than a hiccup, he really is, but he weighed a hundred and nothing and they beat the hell out of him. And he did that for a year, and at the end of the year they said no scholarship is coming, so he transferred to NC State. Then he starts his career as a trial lawyer and he immediately takes on the biggest, toughest, baddest legal firms in America and whips their asses taking up for little people. You don't do that unless you're tough. And I will say this: I'd hate to fight him cause you'd have to kill him, because he would fight you to the last second. I want that toughness in my president, because we can't win on a freakin' haircut.

This is the person I want to have my back as a President.

zalinda

[Krashkopf]

376. Edwards is promising to FIGHT BACK . . . for the DEMS that WOULD BE A CHANGE!

Tulkas said:

Is this really change?

Don't we fight enough already? Does our government do anything but fight with each other?

The problem is that the GOPers have been waging class-warfare against US for the past 27 years, and we DEMS have been TOO POLITE to FIGHT BACK. As a concequence the GOP has been WINNING at our expense.

Honestly, is there ANYONE (other than the DLC) happy with the way Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi continue to "bend over" and take it from the GOP? I'm sure as hell NOT!

THAT, my friend, is what "working together" with the Republicans means, and I say not only no, but HELL NO!.

John Edwards has promised to FIGHT BACK for the American middle class. THAT is the kind of CHANGE that America TRULY NEEDS.

[Divine Discontent]

106. agreed..

Americans should only be able to have one immediate family member in the oval office, then it has to be a grandchild. there's just too much room for corruption otherwise. it should have been between obama and edwards.

[depakid]

107. My prediction: If Bloomberg runs, the Dems lose the presidency

and quite frankly, given their performance, they have no one to blame but themselves.

[polichick]

125. Yep, choosing a centrist guarantees someone else will get into the race. nt

[Tulkas]

143. Backwards

He is looking for room in the middle to run.

If you get Clinton v. Romney he will most likely run

If you get Obama v. McCain he most likely will not run

[polichick]

274. Nader will run if we choose a centrist. nt

[7 of 11]

264. I strongly disagree

He's too dam rich.

IF people don't trust the Edwards because he is worth 13 million or the Clintons because they are worth 20 million, or Romney because he's worth 250 million how do you expect them to trust Bloomberg that is worth a reported 2.0 Billion.

Bloomberg will split the Repukes in two and may take some swing voters along but in the end he will be Ross Perot 2.0. And the Democrats will win in November. Unless of course if Bloomberg selects Obama as a VP. Then things mught get very interesting.

[TheWebHead]

110. I want to win

after all the Edwards supporters get this frustration out of their system tonight after your candidate was thoroughly dominated and humiliated, I hope you see the light and gently suggest your candidate bow out now rather than being a kingmaker for Hillary. If she is our nominee, all across the south you will see candidates in the red states who won't want her anywhere near them and she will drag our red state gains in '06. We'll have to worry about hurricane Bill blowing his top every week, dominating the discussion. The right is doing backflips seeing how Bill's ego has gotten him way too involved in this campaign and they have to be loving it, keeping their giddiness inside until the general.

[zalinda]

174. I won't support Obama, and it doesn't matter

if it's next week or 6 months from now. I think he is a bag of hot air, and I would rather vote for my dead cat than him.

zalinda

[Catchawave]

179. That's where I'm at now....noBama, leaning Hillary.

But with Edwards til he says stop :D

[Critters2]

191. Is your dead cat running?!!

Critters
hoping for any alternative to Hilbama.

[Yael]

343. What makes you think that scenario is going to happen?

She is no where NEAR his platform.

[7 of 11]

113. I wanted to cool it on Edwards remarks but you, sir, have forced my hand.

Edwards comes from a branch of law that is the dwelling place of bottom feeders. He is a trail lawyer; the kind that America hates. He sues people for millions over simple mistakes and that sickens me. He is the type of worm that would sue McDonalds for 6 million over a spilled coffee or represent a bank robber for tripping over the bank's carpet during a heist get away. He was an ambulance chaser that enriched himself to a tune of 13 MILLION dollars suing doctors and medical practitioners. And that is the biggest turn off of all. Truth be told I hold Edwards at the same level of respect as a used car dealer. He is slick and talks out of both ends of his mouth. And most importantly, democrats can see through his smoke screen and it shows in the polls during the primaries and caucuses.

A win for him would sound the death knell for the middle class by chasing what is left of our jobs to China. If you think we lost jobs because of NAFTA(and granted and we did), well you've seen nothing if we elect this ambulance chaser into office. He may believe in helping the poor -- and what liberal/left leaner does not? I sure as hell do!! But his idea for change is an unattainable pie in the sky dream and will hurt the middle class in the long run.

An Obama-Clinton ticket would be a power house that the repuke death machine will crumble under. They speak sense with do-able plans, and that is what is getting my vote in November!!

[druidity33]

132. you're uninformed

have you ever seen 3rd Degree Burns? Can you imagine being 80 or so years old and getting 3rd Degree Burns all over your inner thighs and crotch? Do you know how many skin grafting surgeries she had? Take a guess as to how many other people were burned but settled out of court? She was in the hospital for months and months. And the award wasn't for 6 million. It covered her medical expenses and legal fees with a few thousand left over for home health aides.

If you're gonna use the McDonalds case, do your fucking homework.

Trial lawyers work on contingency. Which means they only get paid if their clients do. It is very rare for a case without merit to end in awards to the Plaintiff. All too often it is the other way around... the corporation screws the little guy.

Someone has been feeding you lies and you've been eating it up.

:shrug:

[Divine Discontent]

159. certainly a clueless individual, good job telling them the truth! it's up to them to digest it

they really sound hell bent on denial and lies, but you tried.

[jkurri]

138. You are an idiot

I am sorry. You have no idea of the cases Mr. Edward has taken and your blanket statement shows you obviously voted for Clinton because you have not taken the time to know the truth. If you are basing your statements about someone being a slime ball then there is noway you could support the Clintons at all, If Mr Edwards is that bad then Clinton 'et al are worse by far. At least Edwards had to connivence a jury that his client was wronged and deserved a settlement as opposed to a group of people who will bend the rules, cheat, berate others and slide around answers so as to not give their true positions. Give me one case that Mr. Edwards won in court that wasn't just and why. You cant and you wont, because you can't. So shut up. Oh, and thanks for your help in electing another republican president. Mark my words, your slimeball remark is going to come back and haunt your candidate. I promise.

[RaleighNCDUer]

157. Good think you know so much about Edwards.

Now, could you please look at the cases he fought and pick out the ten most egregious examples, for the edification of the rest of us?

Please, everybody should know exactly what cases he took, which ones were so wrongheaded. Names and dates, preferably, so we can refer others to the same material.

[Divine Discontent]

158. "He is the type of worm", "slick" - ya know what? you're clueless

you are so damn uninformed - wake up and join the progessive movement. Obama and Clinton have taken a couple hundred million from their owners and they are beholden to those owners - John is not taking money from corporate lobbyists or PAC's and he is totally on our side.

I scoff at your ignorance of thinking an Obama-Clinton ticket is something that would WIN. HAHAHAHA.. That's the worst idea possible for somewhat-Democratic candidates.

[Krashkopf]

189. Spoken like a true REPUBLICAN.

Who let RUSH LIMBAUGH into DU?

You have to stop drinking the REPUBLICAN KOOL-AID, 7/11.

Do you know why BIG BUSINESS/REPUBLICANS hate trial lawyers like John Edwards so much . . . because they know, now that the GOP has BROKEN Federal Government, making it unable to do any meaningful OVERSIGHT, that TRIAL LAWYERS are the only thing left that stands between them and TOTAL CORPORATE UNACCOUNTABILITY.

If you truly believe the GOP TALKING POINTS you just regurgitated, DU might not be the right place for you.

[7 of 11]

265. Yeah I'm A repuke alright *sigh* Because we Obama supporters love Reagan *rolls eyes *W/E

Few here hate and despise the GOP and their lie mill more than I do. So go bite yourself. If Edwards is so awesome then why is even Kerry not supporting him. I wish he would just pack it up and go away before he does serious damage to the Democratic Presidential race. Of course if he should win the nomination *cough cough LOL* I would vote for him just for the sake of killing the repuke war machine. But I really don't believe in the guy.

[Krashkopf]

375. No. You are a REPUKE because you regurgitate RIGHT-WING . . .

"Tort Reform" talking points.

[Canadian_moderate]

407. Nice big happy tent

I'm not even American myself (my wife is and she's a Democrat who is leaning toward Obama), but I have to speak out here. Since when should all democrats agree on all issues?

I totally agree that America's litigiousness hurts your country economy and, more specifically, the working lower and lower-middle class. When big businesses get sued, who do you think ends up paying for it? When physicians are sued, whose health care premium increase? Yes, the working poor and regular Joes are the ones who are hit hardest.

Just as lottery payments are not a form of social assistance, litigation payouts are not a form of social justice.

Yes, there are legitimate lawsuits, but some of the shit that goes on in the US is ridiculous and makes you the laughing stock of the world. It further accentuates America's greed and materialism. Too many civil suits are frivolous and do not ensure justice.

While I hope the Dems take back the White House, I sure as hell hope John Edwards won't be your President in 2009. His "two America's" ramblings do not exactly entice independents and moderates. It's divisive and, in a way, comical, because John Edwards is a millionaire. He has long forgotten where he came from.

[Critters2]

193. An attack on trial lawyers is an attack on the ordinary Americans

they represent, and the ordinary Americans who sit on the juries that hand down verdicts and awards. Trial lawyers only present evidence. They don't make the decisions.

[natrat]

259. nice...the whole corporatist bs anti trial lawyer lie

why do you think they spread it---so they can be unaccountable for anything

[Canadian_moderate]

356. You certainly touched a nerve among a few people here

I tend to agree that pretty lawsuits are costly and don't serve anyone other than a few greedy individuals, but that was a very broad, sweeping statement.

As an outsider, I would agree that America's obsessive litigiousness makes you country look rather silly from time to time. There are better ways to look after the poor than to let them file and win frivilous lawsuits.

When I cross the border in Buffalo, NY I always chuckle when I see all those ridiculous roadside adverts for legal firms. No wonder there little indiustry left in Buffalo. The number one employment sector must be the legal sector.

I hope Obama becomes the next president of the USA and restores America's credibility on the World's stage. Good luck!

[mistertrickster]

119. Edwards may have already destroyed Obama's campaign and handed it off

to Hillary.

If he cared about what was good for the party, he would drop out.

But that would mean stoically enduring living in his 13,000 square foot house while he talks about "two Americas."

Bill wouldn't have won without Perot splitting the vote with Bush 1. Hillary wouldn't be winning without Edwards sucking votes away from the clear winner.

[ClericJohnPreston]

123. Obama is no better

to Edwards supporters as he too is a Corporatist, second only to Hillary, and a conciliatory appeasor, when a fighter is needed.

Sorry, but with the Rezko Trial only a month away and Obama's ethics, hanging in ther balance, I'll stick with my candidate , thank you.

[mistertrickster]

126. OMGosh, Obama takes money from a donor who may have earned it illegally.

Stop the presses.

Did Al Gore call Rezko on his White House phone too?

Pulleez.

[ClericJohnPreston]

129. How intellectually dishonest is that simplistic explanation

Try to leave your "Matrix" world and come out to open your perspective to the whole of the USA which isn't Obama Nation.

In the REAL world, ethics count...as does buying a house at below market value through the hands of an indicted felon to be.

[mistertrickster]

324. Silly me. I'd say not facing reality would be to keep pulling for a perennial third-place finisher

as if he could do anything at this point beside spoil Obama's chances.

I'll bet you a 50 dollar donation to "DemocraticUnderground.com" that Obama ends up with twice as many delegates as Edwards.

You won't take that bet because you know I am right.

So why keep flogging your dead horse?

[polichick]

120. I share your frustration - our frontrunners are CENTRISTS! WTF!?!?!?!

Very disappointing ~ I thought the progressive movement was further along than this.

All we can do now is hold their feet to the fire on the issues that matter to us!

[Critters2]

194. No. We can still vote for Edwards. It's not over yet. nt

[MissDeeds]

124. K&R

I agree completely and share your anger and frustration. A lot of us here are not willing to settle for less than the best Democratic candidate, and that is John Edwards.

[midnight]

127. The system is been fixed for quite some time. But I'm hoping

for a victory.

[mmm413]

128. The Clintons are the Clintons and so on and so forth

Back in the "decadent" 90's when Bill was president, he was the centrist. Hillary had always been much more liberal than he was. BUT, now that she's running, she seems to have forgotten her "librul roots." I will only vote for her if she's the nominee.

Obama saying that he understands Reagan being an agent of change, really makes you wonder about change.

Change for change's sake is BS.

The only candidate who gives a good, googly damn about any of us is Edwards.

[Beam Me Up]

130. Oh, it is MUCH worse than that!

We're inside a deep criminal state now. The kind of real, substantive change you and I want can not be had by political means. And that is the truth of it.

[NOLALady]

178. ITA.

You are coming through loud and clear.

[truedelphi]

386. The needed changes cannot be had by political means

The sad and sorry truth of the matter.

[truedelphi]

387. The needed changes cannot be had by political means

The sad and sorry truth of the matter.

[mruddy]

131. Prom king or queen vs class president?

I wish voters were smart enough to know that what we need is someone with class president credentials, not prom king or queen fluff.

[Triana]

141. I hear ya and I'm angry too. WTF. (n/t)

[Carrieyazel]

144. The problem is a lot of Independents who would want some type of change

won't be going for Hillary or Obama. They'll hold that nose and go with McCain. So you won't even be getting DLC. You'll be getting another (R)

Edwards at least could have given McCain a real race.

[Triana]

148. That's thw worst of it - we may be getting stuck with another R ...

....Edwards could have beat them all.

[Lugnut]

147. K&R n/t

[The Traveler]

150. I hear ya, Krash!

Eerie how this post echoes a conversation my wife and I just had minutes ago. We're frustrated. It is not that we have anything particularly against Obama or Clinton ... we just don't think they are going to put the mix of policies into play that will unlock the potential of this nation and its people. Either Clinton or Obama would represent a vast improvement over the current regime, but I do not hold out great hope for the kind of change this country desperately needs.

I read Obama ... and I do not see where the rep for change really comes from. At best, we are seeing a proposal for incremental changes, small steps. In another recent post, I called this a kind of timid approach, and that is what I feel. I recognize that small steps are sometimes the best that can accomplished. Problem is, sometimes the times demand larger moves. This country is on the ropes again ...

Clinton simply subscribes to an older theory, a theory that made sense if only for political reasons when liberalism was trying to run counter to a conservative movement attaining the peak of its power. That conservative movement is now in shambles, in large part due to the natural antagonism of its three major factions, and also in large part because of the consequences of long term abuse of power. Is this really the time to return to the DLC formula? The conservative movement is not the powerhouse it once was ... and that creates an opportunity for progressives. But we have to deliver progress to seize that opportunity!

There is a reason why so many liberal economists are lining up behind Edwards. It is because his policy proposals represent a significant and sensible departure from the corporatista status quo. It is not anti-business ... but it is definitely opposed to the inappropriate and excessive influence the largest corporations have over the conduct of the public's affairs. It shifts emphasis from support of an affluent elite to support of the people, the true source of this nation's creative power. I see in the John Edwards platform the kernel of a new progressive operating theory ... and we need that. We really do.

One thing Obama had right .... Reagan was able to present a coherent alternative theory of economics and government to the people. That presentation ignored certain vital requirements, deceived about others, and the victory achieved was won on a dishonest basis. For example, the friction between David Stockman and the Reagan administration was due to the fact Reagan had promised Supply Side economics and delivered deficit driven trick down. (Frankly, I think Supply Side economics was bullshit ... but in a real sense, it was never tried.)

We need to (and never have) respond in kind ... by formulating a progressive operating theory that makes sense to the American people. And this is more difficult for progressives because its objectives are more ambitious, and progressives are hampered by being more honest. A victory won through deception in the long term is no victory at all, not if you are a progressive ... because unless we have the right ideas and are successful at signing up the people no significant progress can be made and what progress is made will not endure. We have to do our homework.

You are angry. I am angry. And so are a whole lot of other people. And I have gotten so fuckin' tired of the high school popularity contest level quality of debate around here. I was not an Edwards supporter in 2004 ... but he had not put together so weighty a platform. He had not wrapped his arms around the central issues has he has now. Back then, it was almost like he was trying to woo the DLC while planning a friendly insurrection. There is no wooage now. :) And the insurrection planned is not so friendly.

I can feel the air being sucked out of my hope right now ... because I feel John represents the best opportunity to turn this country around quickly. But the John Edwards revolution does not end with this campaign. The message is out there ... and people have heard it.

Thanks for your post, friend. Please accept this K&R

[glowing]

269. Its one state.... Last time I looked we have 50. Only 4 down and 1

didn't count... lets keep the message strong and hope people listen.. I know the people who are looking at the G.E. vote want to vote for Edwards... I have no doubt that if McCain is the R.. he will win if Edwards isn't their to counter him.

[Iwillnevergiveup]

152. While it is demoralizing

to see John Edwards with such a poor showing in Nevada, this thread seems overly populated with Snopes fans. The way I see it, whether Hillary or Obama wins the nomination, regardless of how much we hold our noses and get out the vote, we're in for a smear-o-rama that'll make the Swiftboaters look like Mary Poppins and we'll have another thumpin', stolen election by the Repubs.

[ileus]

153. Do you want to win? If so Vote Hillary 2008.

[RaleighNCDUer]

169. Now there's a cogent arguement. nt

[sellitman]

188. Only if I have no other Democrat to choose from.

She is dead last in my book.

[Greylyn58]

155. Thanks for saying what needs to be said,

This country has been spiraling down the drain ever since The Shrub and his crowd slithered into DC and took over our White House.

All it is going to take now to finish off this country is for either Hillary-DLC-Clinton or Barack-lets hug a Repug and be friends-Obama to slam in a plug and cut off any hope of fixing whats broke.

"A great civilization is not conquered from without until it has destroyed itself from within."
--The Narrator, in The Fall of the Roman Empire

:banghead:

[ClericJohnPreston]

163. I sadly , concur

Hillary and Obama are the status quo, using gender and race to camouflage the simple fact that they are no different than the DLC corporatists.

Sad, but the white guy is the true maverick.

[focusfan]

162. here here i agree i don't know why people won't vote for Edwards

i mean i think he has said what he intends on doing.and i
think he has better idea's on things than Clinton and Obama.so
why won't nobody vote for him?????Clinton is a sell out she
has took money from corporate people.and that leaves Obama he
is a republican deep down talking about Reagan 

[ClericJohnPreston]

166. No money from the Corporatists accepted

means they must marginalize him at all costs. There is a virtual media blackout on a candidate who came in second in Iowa. Watching and /or reading the media, you wouldn't know Edwards exists, while the media is there to record every Thompson or Ghouliani move, without any apparent popular support.

In a word: CORPORATISM, is why you don't hear about Edwards and why his message is being diluted and blunted.

[santamargarita]

168. You're Right, Screwed Again!

This is going to be the same shit we went through with Kerry.

[1620rock]

173. F*ck this country, it's stupid people, and it's fake elections.

[sandyd921]

207. Can't say I disagree right about now. n/t

[Critters2]

195. Exactly.

The electability meme strikes again.



Oh, and welcome to DU! :hi:

[fascisthunter]

172. Danke....

man I go and paint for a while and this happens. Righteous rant.... stick together. Posts like this make me proud.

[SusanLarson]

175. Kick

Amen!

[NOLALady]

180. We've got to face it.

The fix is in.

[JDPriestly]

182. Thank you. You said it.

I have definitively decided. I'm a real Democrat. I'm not voting for the Twiddly-Dee or Twiddly-Dum. I want the real thing and that's John Edwards. No one else will do.

[Spiffarino]

192. Your photo proves you're the Edwards kind of Dem

FDR all the way. That's what Edwards' campaign says to me.

Roosevelt set the table for the Democratic Party. It was the DINO corporate elites who knocked all the dishes off and handed everything over to Reagan, whose followers have brought us a new Gilded Age.

Edwards could bring a new New Deal if he gets the chance to become President. If that can't happen, then at the very least he should get a top cabinet post or even the Vice-presidency. At least there'd be one Democrat in the house.

[JDPriestly]

229. I don't think Edwards will accept the vice president slot.

He's been there and done that and I don't think he liked it.

[MercerForPrez]

183. Edwards is a show pony

Only Lee Mercer, Jr. represents real change. Where is Edwards calling the Crime War for what it is?

[AJ9000]

231. You obviously meant Barack Hussein Obama. nm

[wisteria]

185. She isn't president yet. n/t

[DRoseDARs]

198. Well I can say that in OUR precinct anyway, while Obama dominated, Edwards beat Hillary by 1.

In Washoe County Precinct # 8209:
Obama-Edwards-Hillary = 68-41-40 out of 149 precinct attendees.

Still, 4% of the state's delegates? That's sad, but at least in our precinct we went home with SOME small victory. :shrug:

[jkurri]

220. Smart people in Washoe county!!!

Hey at least somewhere there is smart people in Washoe county. If you get a chance let me know the area you live maybe I could afford to move there... well, probably not... but at least there is one area where the people think before they vote.

[For PaisAn]

200. Well said

You are so right and I'm quite angry too. Most American voters on both sides are morons.

[Blue_In_AK]

204. Thanks for saying that.

I'm feeling too depressed to rant right now, so thank you for doing it for me.

[Nutmegger]

211. Hello Blue_In_AK

:hug:

[Blue_In_AK]

213. Hi, Nutmegger

I needed the hug. :hug:

[Krashkopf]

224. This is my first "Five Star" post!

Thanks to all who "rec"'d it!

[AJ9000]

227. I fully agree with your post. Well done. nm

[Veracious]

244. ***President John McCain Thank you DLC!***

Edwards beats EVERY Republican candidate by the widest margin consistently polling has shown. He has a lifetime of working for justice! Hillary will galvanize the righties - and a vote for another Clinton IS antithetical to democracy! Dynastic rule should be rejected on pure principle!

Obama voted for the Patriot Act, and since 2004 has been inline with Bush's war in Iraq, and the biggest knock on him is he has taken TON of lobbyist $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$! Obama will not be able to win over Southern Independents.

If another Republican is elected in 08 we can blame - people who thought pushing the envelope with Hated Hillary, and risky Obama would be a great idea. The table is set for Democrats ti win back the Presidency in 08 - we should be smart not surly and idealistic.

[Tulkas]

254. I think you are using decembers polls

Also Obama does not need to win southern anything. Democrats always lose the south. He needs to win in Ohio, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Colorado, New Mexico and NEVADA.


If Edwards was such a good candidate he would have won Iowa. He campaigned there for five years and still came in second. Deal with it.

[ClericJohnPreston]

352. You are naive aren't you?

The greatest threat to our Democracy are the people too ignorant to understand modern politics.

What an insipidly simplistic comment, "If Edwards was such a good candidate he would have won Iowa".

One need not look further than some posters at DU, to understand why we are still in a hole.

[7 of 11]

263. Excuse me but

HELLO! Didn't Edwards help write the FUCKING Iraq war resolution?

[ima_sinnic]

266. If mandatory health insurance becomes a reality, I'll be back to thank

the stinking DLC pigs whose snouts are in the trough, posing here as champions of "change."

I will NOT be "holding my nose" and voting for the DLC candidates, Obama or Billary, because I will just be apathetic as hell and will consider it a waste of time and gas to "vote" for someone whose main concern is how he or she can fatten their wallet with corporate sponsorship, perks, payola, and outright bribes. Someone who wants our jobs to go overseas because it will be good for their own bottom line. Someone who will continue to manipulate our sensibilities with pretty soundbites while they do their backroom deals.

I consider the DLC to be even worse than repukes--at least the repukes are up-front about their sliminess; they don't pretend not to be money-grubbing sleazeballs. The DLC, on the other hand, are Vichy Democrats who have co-opted every aspect of "government by, for, and of the people." They have twisted it, manipulated it and corrupted it, and in the most insidious way, posing as "progressives" and anti-Republicans when in fact they ARE, for all intents and purposes, Republicans to the very core of their being. TRAITORS.

If either one of these plastic-smile figurehead puppets of the corporatists is elected, I will be retreating to the back woods to watch from a distance as I and my fellow citizens are shafted and screwed and what is left of my country is raped, pillaged, and plundered. "Prosperity" under a DLC president? Only if you're a greedy "have-more" 1 percenter.

[Krashkopf]

278. If this election were JUST about "the economy, Stupid" . . .

I would agree with you.

But, PLEASE, but DO NOT, repeat DO NOT, make the misake of believing that there is NO difference between the ANY of the Democrats (even the DLC Democrats) and ANY of the Republicans on VERY, VERY IMPORTANT social issues, and, on nominations to the Supreme Court.

With the nominations of Roberts and Alito, Bush and the GOP have pushed the Supreme Court, and AMERICA, to the "tipping point" of fascism. There could be as many as 3 Supreme Court Justices appointed by the next President. ANY of the Democrats (even the DLC Democrats) will nominate "moderate to progressive" Justices who will pull the Court back from the brink. EVERY ONE of the Republican candidates has pledged to nominate Justices "like Chief Justice Scalia" and will close down what is left of this once free society - reversing Roe v. Wade; and, upholding all of the truly EVIL policies of the Bush administration, including: the suspension of habeas corpus; the use of "extrodinary renditon;" the use of torture; domestic spying; extreme claims of executive privilege, etc., etc., ad nauseum.

As much as I would like to tell the DLCers to go "f" themselves, in know that, for the sake of AMERICA, in 2008 a "good progressive" holds his/her nose and votes DEMOCRATIC.

[Yael]

345. Very well said!!

[and-justice-for-all]

268. Preach it Krashkopf!!! PREACH IT!!!!

EDWARDS IS CHANGE!

[FreeStateDemocrat]

272. Without Edwards in November the Democratic Party will be in trouble.

There are too many negative dynamics with the other leading contenders that may drag the entire ticket down. Without John Edwards we miss a golden opportunity for real change for the best interest of working class Americans. Otherwise we play the old puke game of too bad you lose.

[peacetalksforall]

277. American Dems don' t mind being owned by corporations. The DLC right of center seems fine

with them and they don't realize that DLC Right means all the way to the corporate Right except for abortion.

We are really stupid. We give our rights away to the Right?

Ladies and Gentlemen - there is a Democratic RIGHT that is indecipherable to the Republican corporate RIGHT.

Bush 4 years
Clinton 8 years
Bush 8 years
Clinton - NO

What we're faced with by giving the corporations another four years of their irresponsible thieving of citizens, their law and environment unaccountability, their profits of war is horrendous to consider.

Too many of them are all about short term ends for a few.

Too many of them join the plan to control us.

Too many of them are trying to kill our our affiliations - especially the unions.

I feel sorry for those who think that Clinton wants to rein any of that.

We were a little under the effects of moving up in the 90's and didn't notice what Pres Bill Clinton was doing with our international and domestic longer term standing.

Do we have no one to correct our destiny to becoming corporate serfs? Only Edwards seems to recognize it. I seem to hear Clinton only speak about medical manipulation. She sure seems to love war. Get one and more war will wipe out any benefits of doing something about our medical problems.

This country is in a real crummy place. I am so disappointed in her and all her indications of supporting war. Clinton & DLC = inseperable - therefore, not for me.

Who really knows about Obama.

Only two of our nominees are saying what I think a nominee should be saying about the dilemna the citizens are in. Edwards and Kucinich. Four if you add Gore and Feingold.


And I was a 10 year vehement defender of Hillary Clinton and am still a defender when the RNC Rove Scaife Spectator WashTimes WashPost NYT network batallions get going.

[rhett o rick]

279. If you were angry before, check out this post.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x4127594

[iamjoy]

280. The Best "Man" Doesn't Always Win

I'm not angry that Edwards isn't getting more support, I'm sad.

But, I've found in politics, the best person doesn't always win. Certainly that didn't happen in 2004, or 2000. Some Democrats would argue that didn't happen in our 1992 Presidential Primary.

It makes me frustrated sometimes.

[Clark2008]

281. Answer me this: Have you looked at Edwards' record?

He was NEVER about change and he WAS the poster-boy for the DLC.

God, I can't stand revisionists.

[Kajsa]

289. Krashkopf, I feel the same way.

Exact,precise, hit the nail on the head accuracy
in describing how I ( and I suspect many) of us feel here.

Thank You!

:applause:

[DaLittle Kitty]

291. Collective Ignorance Being Demonstrated By These Morons Voting For Rhetorical chg. NOT Real CHANGE!

NAFTA,NAFTA,NAFTA,NAFTA,NAFTA!NAFTA!NAFTA!NAFTA,NAFTA,NAFTA,NAFTA,NAFTA!NAFTA!NAFTA!NAFTA,NAFTA,NAFTA,NAFTA,NAFTA!NAFTA!NAFTA!NAFTA,NAFTA,NAFTA,NAFTA,NAFTA!NAFTA!NAFTA!NAFTA,NAFTA,NAFTA,NAFTA,NAFTA!NAFTA!NAFTA!NAFTA,NAFTA,NAFTA,NAFTA,NAFTA!NAFTA!NAFTA!NAFTA,NAFTA,NAFTA,NAFTA,NAFTA!NAFTA!NAFTA!NAFTA,NAFTA,NAFTA,NAFTA,NAFTA!NAFTA!NAFTA!NAFTA,NAFTA,NAFTA,NAFTA,NAFTA!NAFTA!NAFTA!WAKE

WAKE UP democrats! :think: Before its too late!:nuke:

Right On "The $Money$ Brother!" These People ARE FOOLS and the "Corporatists" that ... RUN THINGS... Know it!


There is But ONE Party in America... and That ONE Party IS... "The $MONEY$ Party Thank you for expressing quite eloquently... What IS Undeniably THE TRUTH! :crazy:

[CTLawGuy]

293. Don't mean to be mean

but what in Edwards' actual record as a Senator suggests he's for "real" change?

thanks

[Sarah Ibarruri]

295. When I first found this forum (which I LOVE!!) I had no idea what the DLC was.....

... I didn't know that the DLC was a group of Democrats formed in the 1980s that rather liked Ronald Reagan's right wing extremist views, with a few modifications. I didn't know that Bill Clinton was part of the DLC. It now makes perfect sense to me why Bill Clinton went ahead and approved NAFTA joyfully, and is such a close friend with the first George Bush. I didn't know that a preponderance of the Democrats that kiss GW Bush's ass today are DLCers as well, which explains why Nancy Pelosi, Reid, etc. refuse to impeach Bush and Cheney, or, even if they would be unsuccessful, refuse to even try so it gets into history books. It took me a while (on here at DU - again - which a forum I adore) to learn all this. I could not have learned it anywhere else.

Unfortunately, I don't think the majority of ordinary folks out there in the U.S. know this stuff. They don't know their Democratic Party was taken over by people who favor right wing corporate policies over those of the people. To people who don't know, the Democratic Party is the same party as always, a defender primarily of the people, not of big business. They don't put 2 and 2 together to realize why the economy of the middle class and the working poor has turned to shit despite having Bill Clinton for 8 years (since he just continued the cheerleading of corporations, the same way Reagan had done).

My opinion? That we who want the Democratic Party to represent the people once again, should take the party back. NOT by throwing out the baby with the bathwater, so to speak, and refusing to belong to the Democratic Party, but through other means. I mean, this is our party. Would you abandon your child if someone had taken him? Hell no, you'd go after them and take your child back!

Here are a couple of ideas I thought of (keep in mind I'm just an ordinary woman and not some political expert):

1) Exposing Democrats who are right wing. How? By talking about them to Democrats we know and letting them know that just because some people call themselves Democrats, doesn't necessarily mean they're representing the majority of ordinary folks, and may, indeed, be representing business first and foremost. By writing letters to the Editor of your local newspapers pointing out how these Democrats are not really representing the people, but, rather, business.

2) By supporting and sponsoring Democrats that truly represent the people (the way we're do with Kucinich and Edwards). Look how despite the right wing corporate media, their message is getting through! Here in Miami, unions are out there forming, recruiting, protesting!! That wasn't the case in 2006.

Let's bring the Democratic Party back to what it was, the representative of the people, and let the corporation-lovers join the GOP.

[hubble123]

298. Probably My First and Last Post

I've been visiting The Democratic Underground for the past few years. I'm in the military, currently overseas, so I say this as a private citizen, not as a Soldier. But I've spent the last 7 years watching this country go down the wrong path.

I've put all of my hope in the Democratic Party-my family has been Democratic since they voted for Franklin in the 1930s. Like everyone here, I've watched the 24 news cycle, radio talk show hosts, and corporate influence, destroy meaningful, informed, public debate over the past few years.

I thought after the 2004 election, the Democratic Party would get smart and figure this out. It appears to me they have learned nothing. And I think we will lose again in 2008.

Hillary Clinton (who looks to be the likely nominee) has been in Congress since before 9/11. Has her presence there made any meaningful difference?

Hillary Clinton goes into this with probably one of the highest negative ratings of any former presidential candidate...mention her name in about half the country, and people start frothing at the mouth. Is this fair? No, but it is reality, and it is politics.

Democrats have learned nothing from 2004. We should have rallied behind Edwards. We will lose. I've lost faith in this party. Time to get in line and drink the kool-aid.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

300. I'm for Edwards too. PLEASE don't lose faith. If people like you lose faith, we're really lost

People like you, who are in the military, who can speak from so much, so much experience, PLEASE, people like you can get the point across so much better than people like me! You are so needed to bring this country back to goodness!

[Yael]

346. Don't lose faith. This isn't over yet!

Thank you for your service. Please post more often!

[truedelphi]

382. bravo! I stand and salute you and your words. n/t

[On the Road]

299. I Have Never in My Life

seen "manufactured consent" used so openly and so successfully.

[Myrina]

302. Thank you!

:applause: :applause: :patriot: :applause: :applause:

[Phred42]

303. Agree - The DLC represents the Corporations as much as the

NeoCons or Libertarians. It's a Damn Farce. Clinton and Obama may throw "We The People" a Bone now and again but the Corporatists own it all now. Democracy will not survive through to 2012 assuming that it's actually alive right now.

The Corporations, Courts and 'leadership' of the two parties are choosing our Presidents and controlling almost everything and have been for some time. Most simply didn't notice or refused to believe it.

Ever watched a large fly wheel spinning?

Switch the power off and the thing still spins. It still appears to be running. Unless the guy that cuts power tells you he did it you won't even notice. The speed of a very large fly wheel will slow so gradually that it is imperceptible at first. If you walk away and come back in four years to check it you may not even notice that it's spinning slower because you've forgotten what it looked like when it was powered up. And if you've never seen a flywheel spinning before how would you know that it's actually turned off and winding down? All you know is that someone told you that these things spin and there it is, you see it spinning - hurray, it's working! But it's not. It just appears to be working because you either don't know what it looks like when it is actually working, or, you have been too lazy to keep track and have forgotten, or, you have an interest in it not working. So you don't tell anyone that it is not working and in fact tell people that it IS actually working just fine because you don't want them to turn on the power again. So you do everything you can to prevent anyone from seeing the switch. And every time someone says "Hey, this thing isn't spinning as fast as it used to" you come back back louder and say "that guy's crazy, of course it's working" and you do everything you can to destroy anyone that suggests that it's not working.

It's not working. You decide when the power was cut. We just need to find the switch and flip it.

[AlertLurker]

304. John Edwards offered no real possibility of change.

His entire platform is plagiarized from Dennis Kucinich, and then watered down to make it more palatable to centrist Democrats - except that coming from Edwards, one would have to be an absolute FOOL to believe it.

He's NO PROGRESSIVE. He's a multi-millionaire with a 28500 sq. ft. mansion, skinning more millions off the backs of the poor and evictable, hypocritically smearing his opponents while engaging in identical behaviour, attempting to flim-flam the voting public by disavowing his dismal Senate record.

He's a proven LOSER, a Corporatist stooge and former WarWhore with a love for the Police State, attempting to run with a faux-populist, anti-poverty, anti-corporate, anti-war message that no one in their right mind could possibly believe.

I felt sad for USAmericans that the race had narrowed to three main corporatist candidates - I don't fell any worse, however, now that it has been narrowed down to two. I am not fond of either Hillary Clinton or Barak Obama, but I have more respect for either one of them than I ever had for John Edwards.

[OzarkDem]

322. More GOP talking points

what a loser.

[7 of 11]

385. So Edwards supporters revert to the W approach:

If you are not for me you must be a dang terrorist! Or in this case if you don't support our guy you are a Repuke or a GOPer in disguise.

Well, I say he's not even my man.Obama is, but if Edwards wins the nomination I will cast my vote for him because we are and should act as one party to reach our common goals. And besides, the fact that another for years of neoconism will lead to a bloody revolution in this county should be enough for me to vote for him-- twice if I could. Can Edwards supporters say that about Hillary or Obama? Does you maturity level allow you to think of the bigger picture and the nightmare consequences of another four years of Bush-it 2.0 that could become reality if we don't come to a consensus within our own party?

You guys really need to cool it and grow up!! Nuff said!

[Doctor_J]

313. I think we have the stomach for change, but don't know how to go about it

From which follows that it's going to be bloody when it finally comes.

[L0oniX]

326. The best person should win, not the richest or best looking or best lier.

[amborin]

331. how, exactly?

was Edwards going to fight back?

those were campaign promises....but look at his senate record.....

what credentials does he supposedly possess that give him the capability to carry through the rhetoric?

his experience as a trial lawyer?

lots of trial lawyers file suits against large corporations, but this does not translate into any kind of ability to begin to reign in corporations' political power

[appleannie1]

333. Applauding your rant, It is right on.

[earth mom]

337. I AM SO WITH YOU! I HATE THE DLC!

:puke: :puke: :puke:

[Duncan]

348. I'm with you.

Same sort of thing has been pissing me off for the last 30 years or so, ever since I started to pay attention.

[OneGrassRoot]

351. Krashkopf, I applaud your rant as well.

My sig line pretty much says it all for the "Obama" and "Clinton" supporters here at DU who enjoy bashing Edwards' supporters.

With pretty much all agreeing on only one thing - that things MUST CHANGE in a BIG WAY - this race, IMHO, isn't about the people running. Well, obviously that's part of it, but to me it's a secondary issue.

To me it's his/her MESSAGE that is paramount. The message is what will lead to revolutionary change by engaging the electorate, not the "spokesperson" (for lack of a better word) whose mouth it's coming out of.

As for the remaining top three (and, yes, Edwards - much to the dismay of many - is still considered third), Edwards message is the most in-your-face, bold, power-to-the-people message (along with DK). And, quite frankly, to me, it's the most truthful, realistic message. Things have gotten so lopsided in this country as far as who "controls" everything that a real fight to give power back to the people is in store. Something needs to blow the livin' shit right off the volcano of corruption - quelled by a sea of apathy. Platitudes and promises of hope and compromise just aren't gonna cut it with regard to a message I can get behind.

I can understand why people don't believe Edwards is the man to do it - and not care for him personally - but how they can fault his MESSAGE and pooh-pooh the extreme danger we citizens are in is frankly beyond me. Then again, many things are beyond me lately after reading DU and seeing the things posted.

Until a candidate is committed to at least SPEAKING CONSISTENTLY ABOUT THAT MESSAGE (whether or not he/she will come through and DO it is another story), I can't get behind them as passionately as I have Edwards.

I would have LOVED to support a woman or an African-American in this primary, and if either would have been committed to THAT MESSAGE, I would have.

If someone is behind a candidate because A) they agree with a triangulation strategy and think they should vote based on how they THINK the powers-that-be are thinking/maneuvering rather than giving a candidate their heartfelt vote based on his/her message ; B) they want to see huge change in the form of race or gender moreso, with issues secondary, I say you're no better than the Paris Hilton/Britney society America has become. Surface interest, no depth.

CERTAINLY, not all Obama or Clinton supporters fall into either two categories above, and I absolutely respect those of you who support your candidate because you believe in his/her message and believe he/she is the one to manifest the change you seek.

It's those who fall into category A or B that I have no respect for...and who frighten me.

[stickernation]

353. GANDHI GANDHI GANDHI

just had to invoke the great man's name...

...you don't change societal paradigms of enslavement with good poll results, you do it by channeling the people.

everyone relax, simply bringing up the real issues makes it worth it. the memes he is releasing and is capable of releasing in the future make him a very influential person. vote fraud means we don't live in a democracy anyway. edwards and his supporters in my opinion are building something real and long-lasting. NOT FADE AWAY.

so what would gandhi do? how would he go about it? i think it is time to get started writing (collectively, i hurt my finger last week) the books that Edwards would write if he had the time to do it, and it is time to start writing these books NOW.

FUCK OIL COMPANIES
FUCK INSURANCE COMPANIES
FUCK BIG PHARMA
FUCK THE M$M
FUCK RONALD REAGAN
FUCK THE BUSH MAFIA

[freefall]

358. YES!!!!

Except for this part

"Come November, those of us who WANTED REAL, SUBSTANTIVE CHANGE, will hold our collective nose and vote for him, or her, just like we always do."

Some of us won't vote in November unless we are actually getting the substantive change.

Peace

freefall

[Ferret Annica]

363. I agree with you

Which though I disagree with him on many things, I agree with Ralph Nader, America needs a Ron Paul enema, I want him to get the Repug nomination and would support him over Hil in Novenmer.

[ornbudsman]

366. you're right about hillary, but you're deceived about edwards

He crys about poverty, but he voted MFN-China and co-sponsored H-1b - still favored increasing it again last summer

He crys about our veterans, but he's the one who ignored Ritter and co-sponsored the Iraq war bill with NEOCON Lieberman

and then there was this little exchange, i saw the debate and almost fell out of my chair. Classic John Edwards 2 faced BS

http://www.tcf.org/Publications/HomelandSecurity/candid...

SEN. EDWARDS: I want to go back for just a minute though to this whole discussion about our liberties and about what we see happening in America today, because I think it is so fundamental. First, I want to say that this idea that the FBI is increasing surveillance of anti-war protestors, which Reverend Sharpton just made reference to, is outrageous. What kind of McCarthyism is that? And, on top of that—on top of that, they have a policy that allows them to arrest an American citizen on American soil, label them an enemy combatant, put them in prison, keep them there indefinitely—they never see a lawyer, never see a judge, never get a hearing. These violate the very heart and soul of this country. These folks will change the fabric of America if we let them, and we have got to stand up and speak out. MR.

BROKAW: But, Senator Edwards, as I remember, your colleague Russ Feingold was the only senator who said just that when this bill was before your chamber, and you voted for the Patriot Act as a lawyer. You knew what was in it.

OOPS!!!!

[cloud75]

367. one of the reasons i won't vote for edwards is because he is too

weak all i remember is the way cheney "beat him like rented mule" during the 2004 debate.

[frogcycle]

370. haven't given up yet, but

like you, I fear the handwriting is on the wall

here's what I'm thinking:

whatever half-assed excuse for a POTUS we get this fall, Edwards can and should commit himself to a self-financed (plus whatever else he can get) movement to take back America. Liken it to the labor movement in the late 19th century, or the civil rights movement of the 60's.

Rallies, marches, whatever it takes to wake people up to what is happening. He can and should do what Gore did - if you can't break through the establishment stranglehold on the thin facade of what is left of our form of government, go on your own crusade.

There was a "poor people's march" on Washington during the LBJ admin; they pitched tents on the Mall and stayed there for six months or so. We need another one - only call it a 'middler class march" or something.

A pox on all their houses.

[mdmc]

374. R

America gets what America deserves my friend.
Perhaps the sheeple will want a real deal after another 8 years of neo-con rule.

[iris5426]

380. K & R!!

:kick:

edit: or just K, it's too late to R....still learning :shrug:

[Ineedchange]

389. Save an archive of this Post and all the Responses

unfortunately the words "I told you so" won't make you feel better years from but then maybe it will when the 2 top runners turn out to be a GWB with a (D) behind their names. Saying you want change doesn't cost anything while voting against change ensures folks get to stay in their safe comfort zones and complain and about their suffering on blogs. Nevada was about making sure folks like JE don't become king makers. It ensures he won't have enough delegates to get the nomination but more important he won't have enough to be part of the discussion at the convention. Caucusing at your place of work helps discourage participation especially since it's a public vote and your union rep will be part of that process. Caucusing in Nevada can not be equated to what happens in other states.

[Fiendish Thingy]

392. I won't hold my nose, as I will never vote for Republican-lite n/t

[pauldg0]

394. Could we start a new party...........

........Say the "New Democratic Party" or the
"Real Democratic Party" or
"First Democratic Party"

Right now it's the "Republican Democratic Party"

They; the brainwashed or planted candidates, have infiltrated and are destroying the core values of what I always thought was the Democratic party.

Sorry, but I have been on this earth for 60-years and that is how I have seen it. I used to be a Republican! If it's going to be like this, then I guess I will and people like me should go back and compare Hillary or Obama against the other Republican candidates that are currently running.

I JUST WON'T DO THAT....I WAS ALL SET TO VOTE FOR JOHN EDWARDS.....I'M A UNEMPLOYED ENGINEER AND WANT MY JOB BACK !!!

THERE ARE MILLIONS OF JOBS LIKE MINE THAT ARE LEAVING THIS COUNTRY !!

[ChiciB1]

410. Edwards A Man Before His Time... THEY Won't Let Him Win... But

HE SHOULD! The very very best thing Americans can do, but won't!!

Has my vote... and nobody else will take it away from me, even if it may not be counted!