DonVila is winner of Karita Hummer's Silver Pen Award
"Where to now St. Peter?" cont.
Cross-posted from John Edwards 08 blog
DonVila in Diaries Feed of DonVila's Diary
2/08/2008 at 8:48 PM EST
Many leftie commentators are assuring me (somewhat worriedly it seems to me) that the natural home for John Edwards supporters is the Obama camp. My sense is that by a small margin, it will go the other way.
There are serious problems with each candidate if you are an Edwards Democrat, and eventually we each will have to decide which of the two has the least injurious problems. These break in very different directions
Mr. Obama - in demeanor and rhetoric seems more in concert. He also is not taking lobbyist contributions in this election cycle after being challenged by John. Ms. Clinton has not agreed to do this (or to not do it, I guess). But his (Obama's) policy proposals are timid, and he has not shown leadership in the Illinois General Assembly or in Congress. It's quite telling that his explanation for all his "present" votes in the Illinois G.A. is that it was a strategic decision coordinated with the body's leadership. It tends to make one wonder if his "different sort of politics" is anything other than a soundbyte. It also doesn't give one much confidence that he's willing to "Challenge The System" as JedReport (http://jedreport.com) described what John Edwards was trying to do.
Ms. Clinton is a tough sell to us as well. She seems strong in leadership skills, but didn't seem to accept Edwards' analysis that (referring to lobbyists) "You can't be with these people, take their money, and then challenge them. It doesn't work!" So she appears to be with the entrenched interests that we all wanted to stand up to.
But she has more aggressive policy proposals, and seems to have been motivated to achieve them sooner in her administration than she said originally. And I'm persuaded that she can accomplish things. I'm not, however, confident that all the things she'd accomplish will turn out to be to my liking.
I'm also troubled by a nagging sense that the Obama candidacy is something of a cult of personality. Too many of his supporters seem to like the image he portrays and have little sense of the positions he takes or his background. It almost seems as though an Obama lobotomy has been performed on these folks. I see these Obamalobs on Daily Kos and even invading the John Edwards blog.
I have the luxury of knowing my vote for President won't count, still... I'd like Barrack Obama to close me that he's the guy.
Don Wheeler
South Bend, IN
Recommended by...
"Where to now St. Peter?" cont. :: 52 Comments :: Post a Comment
Other blogs commenting on this entry
Display Comments: [ Flat | Nested ] [ Oldest First | Newest First ]
Neither seems to fit the bill for me. (none / 0)
I won't vote for Clinton for several reasons. First, from everything I've read, heard, and discussed with right leaning friends, NOTHING will motivate them to vote Republican as will an opportunity to vote against HRC.
She promotes the idea that she is the candidate who will be bring some meaningful change to our country by changing things in Washington, but I see her as more of the same. She has been a part -- in one capacity or another -- of old school politics for many, many years. I believe that she is part of the problem, so how could she possibly have the solutions our country so desperately needs?
I can't get behind anyone who can't say that voting for the war in Iraq wasn't a mistake. In fact, I'd really like it if she apologized to those families who have lost someone or those who have been injured. She makes half hearted efforts to appeal to folks by showing her "softer side," but how about just a little remorse for her role -- I know it wasn't just her -- in the Iraq disaster.
Maybe I'm in left field, but I think it would be hard to put together a solid cabinet and find a VP
that had some backbone if your husband was Bill Clinton. Remember what Joe Biden said about the possibility of being her VP?
Anyway, I guess no one measure up to the hopes I had for our country under Edwards' leadership.
by clicker107 (clicker107@sbcglobal.net)
on 2/08/2008 at 10:16 PM EST [Flag this Post]
[ Reply to This | ]
As usual, Quite well done (none / 0)
Very good analysis and commentary. May I nominate for my Karita Hummer's Silver Pen Award.
I voted for John Edwards for Super Tuesday and am happy I did so.
What a horrible dilemma, though. Anyway you slice it, such a distant second or third.
Karita Hummer
by Karita Hummer (KaritaHummer@therapyplus.us, Therapy Plus)
on 2/08/2008 at 10:22 PM EST [Flag this Post]
[ Reply to This ]
[new] Thanks Karita, (none / 0)
Please feel free to post.
If John made it onto our ballot I'll certainly vote for him. Neither Obama or Clinton are going to beat McCain in Indiana - which is what I meant when I said my vote won't count for anything.
I think I have a horse to ride in the Governor's race, so I'm getting my saddle ready : > )
Take care. Hope you and Paul are well.
Don
Democracy is not a spectator sport.
by DonVila (DonVila@aol.com, Progressives, South Bend)
on 2/09/2008 at 9:22 AM EST [Flag this Post]
[ Parent | Reply to This | ]
Hillary (none / 0)
Last time I was an ardent Edwards supporter. I felt you had a much better chance than Kerry. I was greatly saddened when it was Kerry as President and you as VP. This time I really studied the Democratic candidates and felt I had to support Hillary. If you review the resumes of the candidates even grudgingly you have to admit Hillary has the qualifications. She has also been a long time fighter for the middle class and children. It makes me sick to see the way her record has been twisted. Now that you have dropped out of the race I am greatly disappointed that you have not endorsed Hillary. How can you stand by and not influence the outcome. Obama has absolutely no experience. Haven't we learned our lesson there? Jimmy Carter, George Bush.
by mamamoog
on 2/09/2008 at 12:03 AM EST [Flag this Post]
[ Reply to This | ]
CHAIN LETTER (none / 0)
Maybe you should be thinking about Nov. instead of us EDWARDS DEMOCRATS....maybe "grudgingly" you can take your message to the Huckabee Democrats..
http://democratsforhuckabee.blogspot.com /2008/01/for-democrat-
by IBEW 124
on 2/09/2008 at 12:37 AM EST [Flag this Post]
[ Parent | Reply to This | ]
[new] phony (none / 0)
Never! HRC=phony
by nj4jre
on 2/09/2008 at 1:28 PM EST [Flag this Post]
[ Parent | Reply to This | ]
I guess it depends on the Republican (none / 0)
A Northern Republican is quite different from say a Southern one. This I know from living in a Southern state that was VERY Republican. In recent years we have had a massive immigration from the North bring with it Democrats (YAY!) along with Northern Republicans and I can notice a marked difference. With that said, I was somewhat surprised when many of them stated that they would vote for Clinton before Obama. With him being voted THE most liberal Senator recently it only clinched the deal. The DIE hard Republicans are usually that way because of their religion or their stance on the war. I have found that the ones to claim the hate Clinton with such a passion, when asked why, they can't even really answer you, they only repeat the mantra they have heard repeatedly. It is as if, they LOVE to hate her with no clear reason as to why. Obama has not been vetted yet, trust me, they will hate him as much as her soon.
by average jane
on 2/09/2008 at 12:17 AM EST [Flag this Post]
[ Reply to This | ]
[new] Yup... (none / 0)
I can't get by the slime my gut still feels they are. Neither has stood up and embraced the issues John Edwards left for them. Aside from words. And what are words with out the power of conviction and example behind them. I become angry thinking on this too much.
It seems my hope at this point lay in Denver come August. I'm feeling a brokered (or broken, as I like to call it, poking fun at the DNC and DLC) convention is the only hope for the populist issues that the good Senator Edwards expressed.
And in that is the crusade I feel we should all take up. Becoming part of a united progressive force to make John Edwards message a reality for the hopeless that need it so much. With this, I feel, we will have served being Edwards Democrats well. With the success we'd have our peoples president in the heart of millions more. Whether he wins the nomination or not.
Proud to have caucused in Iowa for Edwards!
by 24hrlib (go24hrgirl@yahoo.com)
on 2/09/2008 at 3:07 AM EST [Flag this Post]
[ Parent | Reply to This | ]
[new] The rumblings I hear is that (none / 0)
John may head One Corps as a private citizen. For the next four years through One Corps, Edwards Democrats may want to be an independent group and show the D Party the way to go.
Seems intriguing to me.
Democracy is not a spectator sport.
by DonVila (DonVila@aol.com, Progressives, South Bend)
on 2/09/2008 at 9:13 AM EST [Flag this Post]
[ Parent | Reply to This | ]
[new] One Corps (none / 0)
Keeping One Corps does sound like a good idea. He probably wouldn't want it affiliated with any party, independent or not. large Corportion America would not like One Corps.
by rotundo (jsc9@verizon.net)
on 2/09/2008 at 9:45 AM EST [Flag this Post]
[ Parent | Reply to This | ]
[new] Excellent idea! (none / 0)
How can we tell him that?
by lataet
on 2/09/2008 at 10:04 AM EST [Flag this Post]
[ Parent | Reply to This | ]
[new] Well... (none / 0)
I'm mailing john@johnedwards right now. I think One Corps lead by the good Senator would take over where MoveOn left off, before selling out to corporate America. Perhaps, I should call Chapel Hill too? Any other ideas from anyone. Spill it...I want a piece of this action.
Proud to have caucused in Iowa for Edwards!
by 24hrlib (go24hrgirl@yahoo.com)
on 2/09/2008 at 2:28 PM EST [Flag this Post]
[ Parent | Reply to This | ]
[new] southern Repubs will hate Obama more. (none / 0)
Southern republicans are synonomous with KKK. They will hate Obama more, hands down. In fact, the CCA (softer name for KKK) had handwritten notes to Gov of Missouri before he was appointed AG where, Ashcroft wrote back "Thanks for the heads up."
by Coolafella
on 2/09/2008 at 1:09 PM EST [Flag this Post]
[ Parent | Reply to This | ]
[new] Unfortunately, race is still a big factor, (none / 0)
and comments like Obama made in his speech after Super Tuesday will not be wasted on the South, "...there is one thing on this February night that we do not need the final results to know. Our time has come. Our time has come. Our movement is real. And change is coming to America."
Do I have to tell you how that soundbyte will play in the South? I can see the Rep. tv ads already.
by PoliticallyCynical
on 2/09/2008 at 1:29 PM EST [Flag this Post]
[ Parent | Reply to This | ]
[new] Using training principles... (none / 0)
What Hillary has to get the electorate to unlearn: That she isn't the monster that the Republicans have made her out to be over the course of 15 years.
What Obama has to get the electorate to learn: That he is as good as the media have made him out to be. The challenge for Republicans and the corporate media is to make people unlearn their positive image and then relearn a negative image.
Hillary was able to retrain upstate New Yorkers, though upstate New Yorkers are mainly moderate purple types--NOT heavy duty red conservatives like you find in the south. Women who have been in the work world will be skeptical of a new negative slant. After all, you don't hear complaints about her personality from her fellow Senators--far fewer complaints than you hear regarding McCain's temper.
Obama has a very disciplined vocabulary. He tries to bracket the discussion by walling off the emotional hot buttons that each side uses and abuses. But will independents swallow the rhetoric and think of him as the Tiger Woods of politics? Or, will voters continue to let their buttons get pressed by attack ads?
Unlearning is the most difficult form of learning. I'd give Obama the edge in terms of the ease of the task at hand. If the media reverse themselves too dramatically or make discoveries too late, they will undermine their own credibility.
Both have elbows and use them. Edwards does not use elbows and commands my respect for that--but still figures out how to attack effectively. Each is tough in a different way--Hillary withstands abuse, Obama stays objective, Edwards takes the moral high ground; only Edwards is truly brave.
In terms of issues, Obama is stronger on the war, Hillary is stronger on health care. Hillary is stronger on kids and families; Obama is stronger on communities and urban issues. Hillary sucks up to big agriculture and defense industry; Obama sucks up to coal, nuclear and medical insurance industries. Edwards does not suck up to anyone, which is why I still voted for him.
If you want to lift yourself up, lift up someone else. Booker T. Washington
by OklahomaVoter (chang@cableone.net)
on 2/09/2008 at 3:36 AM EST [Flag this Post]
[ Reply to This | ]
[new] I like your analysis (none / 0)
As usual!
Democracy is not a spectator sport.
by DonVila (DonVila@aol.com, Progressives, South Bend)
on 2/09/2008 at 9:17 AM EST [Flag this Post]
[ Parent | Reply to This | ]
[new] Great Diary Don (none / 0)
Edwards supporters certainly do not have much of a choice between C & O. I cannot support either of them and cannot vote for either of them.
Too much to dislike about both, and neither of them ever had an original voice when it came to the issues people wanted to hear and know about it. Both took JRE's words and added a little salt here, some pepper over here, and called it their own. I don't think so. Anyone who has followed JRE throughout his quest for the Presidency knows what is important to him and where C & O words came from.
I would love to see a third party emerge from all of this crap, and take away some of the power that both parties have in selecting and choosing our President for us.
Thanks Don for a well written and thought out diary.
Im4JRE!
by Im4JRE
on 2/09/2008 at 8:35 AM EST [Flag this Post]
[ Reply to This | ]
[new] Thanks for your kind words (none / 0)
Democracy is not a spectator sport.
by DonVila (DonVila@aol.com, Progressives, South Bend)
on 2/09/2008 at 9:16 AM EST [Flag this Post]
[ Reply to This | ]
[new] Edwards challenged Obama's claim about 'no donors' (none / 0)
being corporate lobbyists. In fact, Obama's state organizer in NH was a state drug company lobbyist. The Donorpedia site run by Center for Public Integrity shows the 'bundlers' or people who put together HUGE contributions. Many of them work for the same people the lobbyists do--either directly or indirectly. Very clever move on Senator Obama's part. This is difficult for me, I"m very saddened by it all.
*Obama has a representative from 'clean coal' at each of his events. These people went back into the coal mines after busting the unions. Their safety records is abysmal. In southern Illinois and elsewhere, they are now going back in and mining around the pillars holding up the mines. to get that extra coal. They never would have been allowed to do that before.
*Worse, Obama's 'clean coal' benefactors are mainly getting coal from strip mining. Strip mining has destroyed 800 square miles worth of mountain tops (they remove the top 600 to 1000 feet) in West Virginia. This is a problem for a variety of reasons:
*non union, temporary workers
*all that soil ruins streams
*there are ponds with dams no one will supervise, filled with highly toxic water sitting above towns--these will be superfund sites at some point, no doubt
*Opening up the seam of coal releases carbon even before the coal gets burned. It gets into the atmosphere that way too.
*The very towns threatened by this type of 'clean coal' burning were built by people who used to mine coal. They were put out of work by the companies during the Reagan Administration --a guy Obama has used to get votes from repugs in the Super Tuesday match up. 'Clean coal' no longer uses people. The thing they use to get the coal is so big it just plugs right into the electric grid. Sounds like a net loss of energy to me!
No, unfortunately, Obama is dirty in a reckless way.
I'd back away from the candidate that Oprah built.
*
by BigMediaFearsJohn
on 2/09/2008 at 9:44 AM EST [Flag this Post]
[ Reply to This | ]
[new] Obama is Our Bush. Tough to Expose Him. (none / 0)
No support can be given to Obama.
He is a candidate for the next impeachment.
Very susceptible to corruption.
Integrity2008 - Political experience collected on four continents.
by Integrity2008
on 2/09/2008 at 1:19 PM EST [Flag this Post]
[ Parent | Reply to This | ]
[new] Why has this JRE site turned into bash Obama site? (none / 0)
This makes no sense.
This is a John Edwards site. Why are so many using it as a bash Obama site?
And particularly when it is very possible that John Edwards could take a job position in an Obama administration?
Why continually bash a candidate for whom JRE might work?
It is even possible Obama could ask JRE to be his Vice-President.
Susan in Washington DC
by Matisse (susanra@cpinternet.com)
on 2/09/2008 at 1:32 PM EST [Flag this Post]
[ Parent | Reply to This | ]
[new] The Obama Trolls (none / 0)
have been pestering us like so many mosquitos since John suspended that we tend to feel peeved at them and unfortunately it spills over into feeling prickly about their leader. I wish the aforementioned trolls would realize this and could see that their peskiness and insulting behavior reflects badly on their candidate of choice.
by Rosy Baldwin
on 2/09/2008 at 10:45 PM EST [Flag this Post]
[ Parent | Reply to This | ]
[new] the Candidate that Oprah built (none / 0)
perhaps she just likes that his last name starts with "O".
by PoliticallyCynical
on 2/09/2008 at 2:03 PM EST [Flag this Post]
[ Parent | Reply to This | ]
[new] Don - (none / 0)
Interesting that you describe Obama's policy proposals as "timid". He has said his timidity is his weakness, or something he'd like to change, or however he put it.
Timidity in the face of bin Laden. Won't the Reps have a field day with that one.
by tapster
on 2/09/2008 at 10:00 AM EST [Flag this Post]
[ Reply to This | ]
[new] I don't recall Obama saying "timidity" (none / 0)
as being his downfall. I do remember he said that he is so disorganized that he needs someone to keep his desk (and presumably his mind!) straight for him. Hmmmm! I can just see it now -
Mr. President, that is the RED PHONE RINGING!
Prez Obama: THE PHONE, WHERE IN TARNATION IS THAT BLANKETY-BLANK PHONE??? HANG ON - I KNOW ITS HERE SOMEWHERE!
Geesh!
*TEXAS FOR EDWARDS*
by Mardee
on 2/09/2008 at 11:30 AM EST [Flag this Post]
[ Parent | Reply to This | ]
[new] Mean, but fun! (none / 0)
: > )
Democracy is not a spectator sport.
by DonVila (DonVila@aol.com, Progressives, South Bend)
on 2/09/2008 at 11:45 AM EST [Flag this Post]
[ Parent | Reply to This | ]
[new] Mardee - (none / 0)
What I heard was that when the candidates were asked about what their New Year's resolution would be, Obama's response was that he would like to be "less timid". I also heard about the disorganization remark. That bothers me less; it's what people have secretaries (and wives) for.
by tapster
on 2/09/2008 at 12:57 PM EST [Flag this Post]
[ Parent | Reply to This | ]
[new] Not mean - but true (none / 0)
Obama was asked in a debate to name his weakness.
His answer - being too timid, having trouble speaking up for what he thinks is right.
paraphrased - don't remember his wording verbadim
by coots (Mark.Cutelli@yahoo.com)
on 2/09/2008 at 1:01 PM EST [Flag this Post]
[ Parent | Reply to This | ]
[new] coots, true? (none / 0)
Huh? That's not what Obama said. Obama said he had trouble managing large quantities of paper and that his desk is messy, in response to the 'What is your weakness?' question.
Susan in Washington DC
by Matisse (susanra@cpinternet.com)
on 2/09/2008 at 1:09 PM EST [Flag this Post]
[ Parent | Reply to This | ]
[new] correction of venue (none / 0)
It was at a debate in DesMoine in December, and the question was to each candidate about their New Year's Resolution.
Obama's answer, after the be-a-better-father-and-husband part was, "...if somehow my participation in public life is having a broader impact on their lives and the lives of children all across the country. And so I have to constantly remind myself NOT TO BE TIMID (emphasis mine), not to be distorted by the fears of losing in order to make a real difference in the lives of the American people."
http://www.desmoinesregister.com/apps/pb cs.dll/article?AID=/20071213/NEWS09/7121 3047/1001/NEWS
by PoliticallyCynical
on 2/09/2008 at 2:24 PM EST [Flag this Post]
[ Parent | Reply to This | ]
[new] The Red Phone (none / 0)
I can't stop thinking about Bush in the classroom after being told that a plane had just flown into the TWC tower... sitting there biting his lip and wondering what to do.
by PoliticallyCynical
on 2/09/2008 at 1:12 PM EST [Flag this Post]
[ Parent | Reply to This | ]
[new] Oh come on now... nothing can beat My Pet Goat (none / 0)
Out to Lunch...... They did what??? Now what do I do? Oh yes, I keep reading a book.
by Coolafella
on 2/09/2008 at 1:41 PM EST [Flag this Post]
[ Parent | Reply to This | ]
[new] We've been forced to take a lower grade (none / 0)
of leadership.
I totally agree about the "phenomenon" of Obama being nothing more than tantamount to a lobotomy.
It's like their drunk on the Obama Elixir.
Even if they sober up, the damage has been done. The true choice for the best is gone, thanks to the manuevering of the DNC and corporate media. So, for me, despite whatever the pros and cons are of either Obama or Clinton, we have to have one of them now.
Unless we have a miracle happen at the convention and John Edwards becomes the nominee.
No matter who it is, the Democrats will HAVE TO have John and Elizabeth Edwards out there campaigning for the ticket. That will be the only way to make it past the republican machine and get to the White House.
When we finally rescue the White House, and I truly believe it won't happen without J&E influence, then it will be up to the citizens, like the Edwards Democrats, to keep the President honest and do what has to be done to restore our Constitutional government to the People.
I have a hard time believing the Clinton's will stand by Obama as much as the Obama's will stand by Clinton.
I know this might seem shallow, but maybe Clinton heads the ticket, Obama is her running mate and they do everything they can to get the Edwards' to support and campaign and win this thing for the Democrats.
We cannot afford to have Democrats voting for McCain just because they can't vote for Clinton...what a mess the DNC and corporate media have created.
I guess that's just the way corporate greed would like to have it.
by Sharron Williams (sawart@bellsouth.net)
on 2/09/2008 at 10:15 AM EST [Flag this Post]
[ Reply to This | ]
[new] Don (none / 0)
My daughter lives in Indianapolis and she said that Indiana votes Repub same as someone else said. She also said Indiana is thought as the bible belt or some such expression. I would think Indiana would vote for Huckabee as opposed to McCain. McCain has clearly stated he is for keeping our troops in Iraq...what do you think?
Im4JRE!
by Im4JRE
on 2/09/2008 at 10:31 AM EST [Flag this Post]
[ Reply to This | ]
[new] Jackie, (none / 0)
Your daughter and I each live in modestly blue islands (my island is probably a bit bluer) in a red state. But state-wide stuff is most markedly red in the Presidential races (i.e. last Dem winner here was Johnson).
Because we vote so late (May) Indiana tends to affirm the winners. Last time around, had the contest been in doubt, I'm sure Edwards would have beaten Kerry soundly. But the contest had been decided so Kerry won easily. (Edwards still did pretty well).
So Indiana will go by landslide to McCain in the primary and more narrowly in the general election vs. O or C. Edwards has a lot of crossover appeal (I'm thinking or rural Republicans), and was pretty much the only chance for a Dem win here.
That's how it looks to me.
Democracy is not a spectator sport.
by DonVila (DonVila@aol.com, Progressives, South Bend)
on 2/09/2008 at 10:59 AM EST [Flag this Post]
[ Parent | Reply to This | ]
[new] Regarding the Bible Belt (none / 0)
for those who read their Bibles seriously, there's a gazillion lines in it about poverty.
If you want to lift yourself up, lift up someone else. Booker T. Washington
by OklahomaVoter (chang@cableone.net)
on 2/09/2008 at 11:21 AM EST [Flag this Post]
[ Parent | Reply to This | ]
[new] Amen! (none / 0)
Preach it, brother.
by PoliticallyCynical
on 2/09/2008 at 1:53 PM EST [Flag this Post]
[ Parent | Reply to This | ]
[new] James Dodson (none / 0)
endorsed Huckabee, yesterday, this will have an influence on the "Christian" voters of the Republican party. Also, lets not forget that in recent years there has been the Gay Marriage issue along with that open Supreme Court spot looming. If Indiana is truly a "Bible Belt" state Huckabee has a seriously fighting chance. Also, McCain MAY have done well in SC despite it being in the Bible Belt because there are large military installations there. I don't know if Indiana has this or not, anyone else?
by average jane
on 2/09/2008 at 11:38 AM EST [Flag this Post]
[ Reply to This | ]
[new] Dodson is scary, the whole religious (none / 0)
element of Huckabee's campaign is scary. Haven't we had enough after 8 years of a guy driven by his allegedly religious principals.
by destiny (harmonydestiny@sbcglobal.net)
on 2/09/2008 at 11:46 AM EST [Flag this Post]
[ Parent | Reply to This | ]
[new] Dobson was (none / 0)
an arrogant jerk when my husband worked with him at Los Angeles Children's Hospital in the 1970's. He hasn't changed.
by tapster
on 2/09/2008 at 1:00 PM EST [Flag this Post]
[ Parent | Reply to This | ]
[new] My sister is a "Christian Conservative" (none / 0)
Republican (makes for interesting family gatherings, eh?) and she has changed her support to Huckabee now. She used to have Dodson's monthly magazine "Focus on the Family" sent to me. I read ONE issue, after that all the rest went straight into the trash....lol The arrogance, the bigotry simply amazed me. Not ALL "Christian Conservatives" are judgemental drones, some truly want to stick to their faith and walk the walk and not just talk the talk....but many in my opinion take The Good Book and twist it beyond recognition to fit their own agenda.
by average jane
on 2/09/2008 at 1:37 PM EST [Flag this Post]
[ Parent | Reply to This | ]
[new] I know some of these people (none / 0)
personally. They organize in their churches and are fanatical about the elections. I say there is NO WAY they are just going to let the more moderate side of the GOP take over without a fight. They are JUST LIKE Bush...the honestly believe that it is they are fighting with the Devil. There is just no way they are going to want someone on THEIR side be someone that isn't fanatical like them. I laughed when all the pundits seemed so shocked that Huckabee did so well. I wasn't surprised at all. They see all the other candidates as getting us out of the war to one degree or another but they only see HUCKABEE as the one representing their "values". They are like the Christian version of Obamabots and they are scarey because being like sheeple and George Bush at the same time...yikes!
by average jane
on 2/09/2008 at 11:59 AM EST [Flag this Post]
[ Reply to This | ]
[new] Lobbyists (none / 0)
Actually she can take lobbyist money and then turn on them. She has done it many times. She has taken Tyson money in the past and she is lobbying right now to eliminate any company-owned meat packing plant. Now for most city dwellers that means nothing... but for us Okie farmers, it is well known that the big companies are manipulating the market on pigs by requiring contracts with them. Tyson is the largest offender.
On the other hand, Obama took 227,000 from Exelon and when asked to write a bill REQUIRING them to report toxic spills (after they already had gone 6 years without reporting the prior radioactive spill), he responded by writing REQUIRED... I mean STRONGLY ADVISED TO... I mean ADVISED to.
So the bill starts out strong... Exelon objects and the bill is weakened and still not passed, even though it was 3 years since the bill was introduced.
Now as far as who he would help more...
He would help Obama more, because he could get the southern white vote. His base is pretty similar to Hillary's, so what help could he give her.
On principles and good of the country I would like to see a Clinton/Edwards ticket rather than a Clinton/Obama ticket. That would also keep Edwards in the limelight and set him up for his own run.
If it were Obama/Edwards, I think even if Obama were elected, the backlash and fury of the consistent conservative pounding that goes on when a democrat is president will probably set him up not to be re-elected.
If it were Clinton/Obama I think the bad publicity they are planning for Obama (adverse film that they are releasing as soon as the convention is over) will drag down the campaign.
If it were Obama/Clinton, ditto.
Obama the uniter ... no fighting in politics. No way. The fighting is done by the constant bashing of right wing media and there is no end in sight.
I say JRE on the ticket (VP) anyway because his only hope to get any media attention now is by being on the ticket. The long and the short of it is media does matter and the fact that he was overlooked by media severely messed up his campaign.
by Coolafella
on 2/09/2008 at 12:33 PM EST [Flag this Post]
[ Reply to This | ]
[new] Everybody has done something wrong... (none / 0)
but if UHC is your issue, you have to back Clinton and hope JRE does too.
My take is that he will - for health care - and may even be her AG. He will not run as VP again. It requires too much kow-towing and it wasn't right for him with Kerry.
Also, he and Bill go way back and the three of them could do a lot of good - and set JRE up for a run for the white house in the future.
I have a feeling the AG is going to have his work cut out for him. Check this out:
http://www.progressive.org/mag_rothschil d0308
The people who support me are fearless. - John Edwards
by Julia02110 (juliabruno@earthlink.net, Boston for Edwards)
on 2/09/2008 at 1:03 PM EST [Flag this Post]
[ Reply to This | ]
[new] Hillary and Romney's plan (none / 0)
I won't back any plan that will force people in to the plan and garnish their wages if they don't pay up. (Clinton on ABC as to how she would enforce her plan)
People who suggest this kind of plan may have good intentions, but they haven't lived with the kind of decisions the poor must live with.
We should never take money away from those who desparately need it for so many things. In our country people should have freedom to choose where to put the money they have earned.
I have worked in healthcare on the ground for nearly 40 years. I know you can pronounce 'healthcare ' without looking at the whole circumstances in which so many Americans live.
I thought this campaign was the one that understood that........
I live in Massachusetts where former Gov Romney left us with a 'mandated universal plan' similar to what Hillary is proposing. No, people are not all insured here (as of last week only 1/2 of those we hoped would be insured even with a year to prepare) and the poor are feeling the weight of the penalties in addition to the burdens they already bear. (adults losing their tax exemption if they fail to join a qualified plan).
Hillary like Romney doen't struggle paycheck to payckeck. She can't comprehend she is simply increasing their daily struggle and pain.
She can't fathom that health care should be offered and available to everyone, but never forced on someone under threat of economic or criminal penalty.
The poor often have little dignity afforded to them Now we're going to tell them how they have to spend what little money they have.
But's it's a great way to assure the insurance lobby funding her campaign gets their fair share.
And a great way to feel good about 'what we are doing for the less fortunate'. Many of those folks affected see her plan and Romney's as 'doing it to them'.
I wish John would speak out on this. His plan isn't Hillary's plan. She would only have us believe that.
by MargaretW
on 2/09/2008 at 1:22 PM EST [Flag this Post]
[ Parent | Reply to This | ]
[new] Garnish wages (none / 0)
You must have completely missed the part where if you were poor, you would receive a tax credit to cover the entire cost of the insurance.
by Coolafella
on 2/09/2008 at 1:42 PM EST [Flag this Post]
[ Parent | Reply to This | ]
[new] Who decides who is poor? (none / 0)
Right now, the people who are considered to be "poor" by our government's standards have Medicaid.
It's the income level(s) above the Medicaid recipients, the working poor, that are without coverage. Not "poor" enough to qualify for Medicaid, but still too poor to afford health insurance, they slip through the cracks.
The biggest problem with the government deciding who can or cannot afford to have health insurance premiums deducted from someone's paycheck is the government is OUT OF TOUCH with what poverty or the ability to pay is.
by PoliticallyCynical
on 2/10/2008 at 4:37 PM EST [Flag this Post]
[ Parent | Reply to This | ]
[new] Can't be a Clinton/Obama ticket..it will never run (none / 0)
The country is ready for change....but not that much change. May be ready for a minority - but a double minority ticket? It's not. McCain would be set to win easily then.
Edwards and either candidate - would be nice. Dont see it happening.
There is a lot of speculation and rumor right now. Let's just keep up the fight and see where it goes. At minimum being part of an activist group that keeps the important issues alive and in the forefront for those without voices is key here. Any way we can send a message to the country that these issues need to remain visible is necessary...voting, bucking the system, email campaigns, news, ads, radio promos, etc....
We're working hard to keep these issues alive. I've been blessed with meeting a lot of great, hard working people on this blog site. It's amazing the fire that Mr. Edwards lit..the fire is still burning for so many who are willing to take action rather than sit back and give up.
I commend them! You know who you are!
...Lataet
by lataet
on 2/09/2008 at 1:21 PM EST [Flag this Post]
[ Reply to This | ]
[new] Obama has aready turned his nose in the air (none / 0)
at the suggestion of a VP position on Hillary's ticket.... So, a Clinton/Edwards could happen.
by Coolafella
on 2/09/2008 at 1:44 PM EST [Flag this Post]
[ Parent | Reply to This | ]
[new] a comment on electabilty. (none / 0)
I'm a life long democratic from Boston. After moving to NJ several years ago, I live in a community where I am surrounded by Republicans. Many of them have expressed to me that they disliked all of the republicans candidates. Some of them even said they would vote for Obama especially if McCain was the nominee. But they would never ever vote for Hillary. Many of the former reagan democrats returning to the democratic fold after so many years in the republican wilderness feel the same way. While Obama has so many deficiences as a democratic candidate(per many posts on this site), I feel that the only candidate that could be defeated by a republican is Hillary. And despite eveything else, we cannot afford to have a republican in the white house as the country slides in recession. I'll hold my nose and vote for the democratic nominee. I just hope against hope that something truly amazing could happen at the convention to put John Edwards back on top.
by Rmaccorm (rmaccorm@verizon.net)
on 2/09/2008 at 3:39 PM EST [Flag this Post]
[ Reply to This | ]
[new] Republicans have had their way (none / 0)
far to long, anyone who even suggests working with them while running for the Democratic nomination, in my books, is not to be trusted. I once, many years ago, thought Hillary would be a good President, but I think she forgot about the little people on her road to fame and glory.
Don't get me wrong, both would maybe be a good President, at least they'd fill the office with good Democratic thinking people but I don't think either one has given thought to the problems we face. I believe they are giving lip service in order to get the job.
There was one man who I would hire as my President and for now he's with drawn his application. He knew the problems and had a plan. I still what to hold the job open for him if he changes his mind. Thats why I'm voting for him.
Can Obamer swing a hammer? John Edwards can!
Change is the only constant we can rely on...
by Acebass (Veterans for John Edwards)
on 2/09/2008 at 4:29 PM EST [Flag this Post]
[ Reply to This | ]
[new] Machine politics vs corporatism (none / 0)
We are left with a bad choice. Neither one is the candidate that John Edwards was and could be. i say that we wait it out and see how it breaks. I voted for Edwards in the IL primary. So far, neither Hillary nor Obama seem to care much about the middle class or the poor. We don't need to be beaten up by chanting hordes. We can think and will do what we think is right.
by cleo (pennydachshund@yahoo.com)
No comments:
Post a Comment