I don't disagree with you, Steven.

And as far as we agree, I don't think either of us have enough to base a vote on.

But then, most made votes are based on next-to-nothing, or 'vibes' in the eye of the be-voter -- that's my theory and I'm sticking to it.

by meremark (1 articles, 3 quicklinks, 23 diaries, 483 comments) on Friday, January 4, 2008 at 1:47:08 AM
 

Almost forgot: I pay no attention to massmind media's view

... since I don't have to.  MediaMatters tells all there is to know:  TV = LIARS. 

BOYCOTT Cable TV.  Just don't pay the bill, bankrupt them and build our own main news media.  Internets are media.  Telebabble are losers.

by meremark (1 articles, 3 quicklinks, 23 diaries, 483 comments) on Friday, January 4, 2008 at 1:58:56 AM
 

Hi Steven,

I think the really good news for Democrats is that Edwards beat out Clinton in this first round. If Clinton had won, the corporate news media would have gone berserk and proclaimed her the Democratic nominee right off the bat.

I am very surprised that Obama was able to get so many votes with such a nondescript message and nonexistent platform. Edwards has a clear and appealing platform for progressives, and I think that will work to his benefit as the primaries play out.

I just hope that Clinton loses in New Hampshire also, which would take some of the steam out of the corporate media’s desperate desire to coronate her as the Democratic nominee.

by John R Moffett (80 articles, 14 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 601 comments) on Friday, January 4, 2008 at 5:19:22 AM
 

Iowa has become an odd duck, primarily

Huckabee for gosh sakes? A better test will be when we leave the bible belt and let voters decide things on other than irrational faith.

Steve knows full well my antipathy to all things democratic (party that is), and that I am a dyed in the wool third party guy. Obama scares me, frankly, if only because of his ability to inspire through fiery speeches while ducking votes on serious issues in order, I assume, to leave no trail subject to criticism. Where the hell is Harry Truman when you need him?

The more I listen to Edwards the more attractive his candidacy has become. That, Mr. Leser, is the best you'lle get from me. More lawyers in government oh boy!

by ardee D. (6 articles, 4 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 2388 comments) on Friday, January 4, 2008 at 6:55:42 AM
 

Good comments, all, here is more...

http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/01/03/6131/

Progressives have an opportunity to make a big difference now in the Democratic nomination. I dont fault any of you for supporting Kucinich, but that time now has passed.

There is a guy out there (Obama) who is claiming he is for change but is nothing more than hype. Obama represents the status quo wrapped up in flowery language. There is no group out there better than real progressives to stand up and point this out in the most harsh and glaring terms.

Edwards has seen the light. He gets it. I see him and his positions over the last 10 years as constantly and consistently evolving in the same direction to get him to where he is today. He was more progressive in 2004 than he was in 2002. He was more progressive in 2006 then he was in 2004. And he is more progressive in 2007 and the beginning now of 2008 than he was in 2006.

And folks, he accepted public financing. That is a risk that those of us who want to see an end to big money deciding campaigns should support. More soon.

by Steven Leser (194 articles, 38 quicklinks, 32 diaries, 1299 comments) on Friday, January 4, 2008 at 7:14:31 AM
 

Not picking

a fight here, but Edwards does exactly what slick trial lawyers do, make hellacious defense speeches.

I look at the mansion dwelling, chic dressed, meticulously manicured wealthy attorney in front of me and say WOW, isn't this the model that Democrats and especially progressives despise?

But then, he promises to turn his legal wrath on those of his own kind for the benefit of the "poor unfortunate" people and Shazam, he's not a money grubbing trail lawyer any longer, he's the new messiah.

Edwards says that he fought corporations all of his life. Well duh! that's where the deep pockets are!

Give me Obama between the two, at least he has had less time to hone his bait and switch routine.

by Mike Folkerth (120 articles, 0 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 566 comments) on Friday, January 4, 2008 at 8:25:36 AM
 

As soon as you remove your unfair lawyer generalizations...

your argument is non-existent.

Do you really think people should be judged by the most unfair possible stereotypes of their professions?

By the way, isn't Obama a lawyer too? Oops. What was your argument again?

by Steven Leser (194 articles, 38 quicklinks, 32 diaries, 1299 comments) on Friday, January 4, 2008 at 9:01:02 AM
 

Steven

I did say that Obama "just hadn't had the practice," meaning that yes he is a lawyer, just not as skilled at the bait and switch.

I also said that I wasn't picking a fight, I just don't understand how a person who is obviously living the epitome of wealth and excess, can suddenly feel the call of the underprivileged. Do as I say, not as I do?

I'm not a fan of Obama, I simply think that he is far more sincere than Edwards. 

I think that this will be the end of Edwards political career. Only my opinion and time will certainly tell.

by Mike Folkerth (120 articles, 0 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 566 comments) on Friday, January 4, 2008 at 10:41:50 AM
 

Edwards' Wealth

Good heavens!  What a silly argument that Edwards is wealthy and lives in a big house.  Doesn't anyone out there remember Franklin Delano Roosevelt?  He didn't start out poor and become wealthy.  He started out with the proverbial silver spoon.  Yet he did more for the poor in this country than any other president we have ever had. 

John Edwards is the best candidate we have now.  If he loses, I will support whatever candidate makes it on the ballot in November.  I sincerely hope it is Edwards. 

by Shirley Bianchi (9 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 90 comments) on Friday, January 4, 2008 at 11:40:12 AM
 

I'd be very sorry to see Obama defeat Edwards for the

nomination, even though I'm honestly very skeptical about the degree to which Edwards "really means it" when he inveighs against corporate power.

If Obama is nominated, we spend the entire election year in a fog of vague happy talk about "unity and hope." In Obama-land, the only enemy is lack of optimism. Edwards, on the other hand, is at least accurately identifying the real enemy out there: grotesquely excessive corporate power. He is increasingly "talking the talk" of opposition to the US war machine, & to the privileges of the corporate elite.

The risk with Edwards is that he doesn't entirely "mean it"; that when push comes to shove, he won't "walk the walk." But the risk with Obama is much greater: since he doesn't even talk the talk, his campaign won't educate the public. Rather, it's anodyne quality will dull the public's awareness there really are dangerous forces at the top of US society which must be confronted and reined in.

Happy talk about "unity and hope" will destroy any possibility of confronting those forces.

If we're all lucky & Hillary gets trounced in New Hampshire in a few days,  Obama will become the media darling (because his "upbeat" message validates the US social order), while Edwards will start getting "Kucinich-ized." He'll be portrayed as "too negative" and "not mainstream."

by Richard Mynick (2 articles, 3 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 1121 comments) on Friday, January 4, 2008 at 2:17:01 PM
 

very sorry to see Obama defeat Edwards

I think your comments are very insightful---especially since I share your opinions.  I do believe however, that the fact that Edwards is not accepting PAC money speaks volumes about his sincerity. 

 I don't quite understand why the people who dislike Hillary decided to protest her candidacy by voting for Obama.  I think that Obama is just Hillary with a little happy talk.  It seems to me that Obama and Hillary are practically marching lock step on most issues.  Edwards is the most anti corporate of the three.  The fact that business doesn't like him isn't worthy of much consideration since they are going to attack any non Republican with all the money and dirty tricks they can muster.

by vidiot (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 171 comments) on Friday, January 4, 2008 at 6:44:14 PM
 

Rich M

You are so right. And that is how the Dems could be beat in an unbeatable race. Obama becomes the media darling, but the flowery speeches with no idea of how to revitalize the economy wears thin by November and the Republicans sneak in; one more time!

I still say Edwards doesn't mean it. Standing there in his $3,000 suit and meticulous hair saying "I'm not the rich candidate, not the glitzy candidate, not the polished candidate, but he peoples candidate." I don't buy it.

by Mike Folkerth (120 articles, 0 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 566 comments) on Friday, January 4, 2008 at 6:41:25 PM
 

Steven

While most of the commenter are correct as far as they go. There are few points that need making.

Ladies and Gentlemen we are here at the ellection stakes to see who will wear the Democrat trophy in the main race "the Presidentdial" in November. This is a long race and not for the first time the performers are all from the same stable showing common blood lines.

I am pleased to note that all three front runner  that made it over the first hurdle safely but in surprising order. Back in the field some of the others have retired.More are expected after the next jump. Kucinich a seeming good option is facing do or die.

Obama has galloped ahead on his  2yo stallion   "HOPE' sired by "CHANGE"  out of "TUST ME" a fine performer so far  but will the jockey and horse be able to take the more grueling jumps at the southen end of the course.  

If Edwards had stumbled his he would have been too far behind to catch up. But he put a good show on his 5yo Gelding 'CHANGE' by"WITHOUT FEAR" "out of  "TRUST me"a good solid performance but has it got the legs for the Get to the Southern tracks .

 While Hillary on timeless  mare "TRUST ME" ( mother of all Democrat runners) out of " Business as Usual" stumbled but still finished a credible third. The question before the punters here has she seen better days and does she have the legs.

Speculation in the betting ring is that positions consolidate after the next jump. "HOPE" needs to show his fitness instead of relying on in puts (money) on the more difficult jumps to come.

"CHANGE" needs to perform at least as well even adopting some of the riding style fundementals of "HOPE" if he is to last.

"TRUST ME" will need to find something extra in her armoury to perform extra well here at a non hostle jump if she is to convince the money that she's a viable option not only for the  Democrat Trophey but the Looking forward to the major events in November when the trophy winner will be racing in hostile territory in the "Presidential Stakes.  Good Luck and good punting.

by Andris (4 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 532 comments) on Saturday, January 5, 2008 at 3:02:01 AM