Who's Afraid of John Edwards?

Moderators: Elvis, DrVolin, Jeff

Postby sunny » Wed Jan 09, 2008 2:02 pm

judasdisney wrote:81% of NH primary votes were counted by Diebold optical scanners

The day before NH's primary, Obama held an 11-point lead in most polls, and Hillary's own in-house poll allegedly showed a 14-point lead for Obama.

Now, the narrative is "polls are fallible." Yeah.


The headline at Counterpunch- The Empire Strikes Back

But, (and I'm just throwing out thoughts here and would welcome a discussion), as I think we have demonstrated on the Obama thread, wouldn't he be just as acceptable to the Establishment if not more so than Clinton? Obama seems far more malleable, for one thing. Another factor to consider here is the indisputable malice of the media toward HRC in the last few days before NH, declaring her dead and condescendingly sneering about her "tears". I have no idea if the emotional outburst was real or not, but it is a fact that similar outbursts were ignored and even praised as "genuine" when it was repuglies doing it. Several of them, in fact.

Didn't the media get the memo? Why are they universally hating on Clinton and anointing Obama with what can only be described as a type of religious fervor, creating a feel good atmosphere a lot of progressives are buying into hook line and sinker. Did they do it to create the backlash that caused Clinton to win NH last night? If so, does vote hacking play into that meme or vice versa?
Choose love
sunny
 
Posts: 5220
Joined: Mon May 16, 2005 10:18 pm
Location: Alabama
Blog: View Blog (1)

Postby judasdisney » Wed Jan 09, 2008 8:39 pm

sunny wrote:But, (and I'm just throwing out thoughts here and would welcome a discussion), as I think we have demonstrated on the Obama thread, wouldn't he be just as acceptable to the Establishment if not more so than Clinton?


NO. Hillary is preferable over Obama as a Neocon Narrative symbol of the 1960s-as-Left-Is-Responsible-For-All-Evil, as "Feminist" arch-villain, and as the only person left who can still discredit "Clinton's Golden 1990s".

Obama starts a separate national narrative, leaving the 1960s/Clinton narrative unresolved.

Remember also, the goal here is to dismantle the remnants of the New Deal and even its weakened/half-measure branches.

Remember also, the Clintons are compromised -- and implicated in Iran/Contra -- via Mena. That's why it was so important for a discreditable Right-Wing loon to write the book "Compromised."

Did they do it to create the backlash that caused Clinton to win NH last night? If so, does vote hacking play into that meme or vice versa?


Nobody benefits more from the "silly attacks" on the Clintons than the Clintons themselves.
judasdisney
 
Posts: 832
Joined: Tue Jun 20, 2006 3:32 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby chiggerbit » Sat Jan 12, 2008 7:57 pm

http://tinyurl.com/39s6nu

By Kevin Drawbaugh - Analysis

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Ask corporate lobbyists which presidential contender is most feared by their clients and the answer is almost always the same -- Democrat John Edwards.

The former North Carolina senator's chosen profession alone raises the hackles of business people. Before entering politics, he made a fortune as a trial lawyer.

In litigious America, trial lawyers bring lawsuits against companies on behalf of aggrieved individuals and sometimes win multimillion-dollar settlements. Edwards won several.

But beyond his profession, Edwards' tone and language on the campaign trail have increased business antipathy toward him. His stump speeches are peppered with attacks on "corporate greed" and warnings of "the destruction of the middle class."

He accuses lobbyists of "corrupting the government" and says Americans lack universal health care because of "drug companies, insurance companies and their lobbyists."

Despite not winning the two state nominating contests completed so far, with 48 to go, Edwards insists he is in the race to stay. An Edwards campaign spokesman said on Thursday that inside-the-Beltway operatives who fight to defend the powerful and the privileged should be afraid.

"The lobbyists and special interests who abuse the system in Washington have good reason to fear John Edwards.

"Once he is president, the interests of middle class families will never again take a back seat to corporate greed in Washington," said campaign spokesman Eric Schultz.

Open attacks on the business elite are seldom heard from mainstream White House candidates in America, despite skyrocketing CEO pay, rising income inequality, and a torrent of scandals in corporate boardrooms and on Wall Street.

But this year Edwards is not alone. Republican candidate Mike Huckabee, former governor of Arkansas, sometimes also rails against corporate power and influence, tapping a populist current that lies just below the surface of U.S. politics.

One business lobbyist, who asked not to be named, said Edwards "has gone to this angry populist, anti-business rhetoric that borders on class warfare ... He focuses dislike of special interests, which is out there, on business."

Another lobbyist said an Edwards presidency would be "a disaster" for his well-heeled industrialist clients.

After this week's New Hampshire primaries, where he placed a distant third behind New York Sen. Hillary Clinton and Illinois Sen. Barack Obama, Edwards might not seem so scary. He ran second in the Iowa Democratic caucuses last week, trailing Obama and just ahead of Clinton.

Edwards suffered a blow on Thursday when Massachusetts Democratic Sen. John Kerry snubbed him and endorsed Obama. Edwards was Kerry's vice-presidential running mate in Kerry's failed Democratic bid for the White House in 2004.

BUSINESS'S FAVORITE UNCLEAR

Asked which candidate their clients most support, corporate lobbyists were unsure. Clinton has cautious backing within the corporate jet set, as do Arizona Republican Sen. John McCain and former Republican Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, they said.

These candidates represent stability to executives who have much to lose if November's election brings about the sweeping change some candidates are promising.

Obama and Huckabee register largely as unknown quantities among business owners, both large and small, say lobbyists.

"My sense is that Obama would govern as a reasonably pragmatic Democrat ... I think Hillary is approachable. She knows where a lot of her funding has come from, to be blunt," said Greg Valliere, chief political strategist at Stanford Group Co., a market and policy analysis group.

But Edwards, Valliere said, is seen as "an anti-business populist" and "a trade protectionist who is quite unabashed about raising taxes."

"I think his regulatory policies, as well as his tax policies, would be viewed as a threat to business," he said.

"The next scariest for business would be Huckabee because of his rhetoric and because he's an unknown."
chiggerbit
 
Posts: 8594
Joined: Tue May 10, 2005 12:23 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby mentalgongfu2 » Tue Jan 15, 2008 2:18 am

as much as I'd like to believe Edwards has just intentions in his campaign bid, when I hear any established politician talk about "washington politicians" and their evil, like I heard from an Edwards speech today, I just can't trust it.
It may be just a PR move, as I'm sure any campaign advisor would suggest he bandy that phrase about (and i've heard many politicos do so), but I'd be a lot more sold if he said something like "my brethren in Washington," instead of trying to place himself outside of the corrupted political system.

Edwards is saying all the right things, but he's a smooth talker who gives me a 'too good to be true' vibe, and I can't forget that he ran as VP on Kerry's strawman ticket in 2004, when Kerry conceded while the evidence of fraud in Ohio was piling up.

2004 was the first and last time I'll ever stoop to vote for a major party candidate, methinks. And I did it with disgust at the time . . .
"When I'm done ranting about elite power that rules the planet under a totalitarian government that uses the media in order to keep people stupid, my throat gets parched. That's why I drink Orange Drink!"
User avatar
mentalgongfu2
 
Posts: 1967
Joined: Tue Aug 14, 2007 6:02 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby chiggerbit » Tue Jan 15, 2008 10:58 am

http://www.consortiumnews.com/2005/110505.html


"...But Winer said Kerry didn’t believe the evidence existed to prove systematic tampering with the vote in 2004. Kerry also was certain he would face withering criticism if he challenged the election results without strong evidence.

“The powers in place would have smashed him,”’ Winer said.

On “Democracy Now,” Miller said Kerry bent to the will of his campaign advisers to concede, even though his vice presidential running mate, John Edwards, favored holding out until more information was in.

Based on reporting for Fooled Again, Miller said Kerry told Edwards in a phone call that Shrum and other advisers insisted that a concession was the best course. “They say that if I don’t pull out, they (Kerry’s political opponents) are going to call us sore losers,” Miller said, recounting the substance of Kerry’s phone call to Edwards.

Miller said Edwards responded, “So what if they call us sore losers?” But Kerry pressed ahead with his decision to concede...."
chiggerbit
 
Posts: 8594
Joined: Tue May 10, 2005 12:23 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby chiggerbit » Tue Jan 15, 2008 11:07 am

Do you wonder if this disagreement had anything to do with the fact that Kerry endorsed Clinton rather than Edwards? Edwards is feisty, doesn't give in easily, which I would think annoyed Kerry. I don't imagine that Kerry appreciated Edwards' advice, especially when it turns out that Edwards was right. This is one subject I sure would love to hear Edwards talk about in more detail.
chiggerbit
 
Posts: 8594
Joined: Tue May 10, 2005 12:23 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby chiggerbit » Thu Jan 17, 2008 1:18 pm

http://tinyurl.com/275ztm

Edwards On O’Reilly: 'He Has No Idea What He’s Talking About'
Email
Share January 16, 2008 10:42 PM

ABC News' Raelyn Johnson reports: In a campaign stop in Las Vegas, Nev., Democratic hopeful John Edwards defended himself against Bill O’Reilly’s slamming a regular part of his stump speech that thousands of homeless vets are sleeping under bridges.

“In a country with as much wealth as America has, for us to have as many as 200,000 veterans who go to bed under bridges, go to sleep under bridges, or on grates, and who are homeless... This is immoral, and it’s wrong. And we, America, we have a responsibility to do something about it,” Edwards repeated tonight, speaking at US Veterans, a non profit organization that reintegrates homeless vets back into society.

Last night, on Fox's "The O’Reilly Factor," guest Ed Schultz, a syndicated radio talk show host, suggested that Edwards needs to expand on his two Americas theme. O’Reilly jumped in:

O'REILLY: Well, we're still looking for all the veterans sleeping under the bridges, Ed. So, if you find anybody, let us know. Because that's all the guy said for the last...
SCHULTZ: Well, they're out there, Bill, don't kid yourself.
O'REILLY: They may be out there, but there are not many of them out there, OK. So, if you know where there is a veteran sleeping under a bridge, you call me immediately, and we will make sure that man does not do it.

Tonight, speaking in front of a roomful of homeless vets, Edwards responded, “I heard that, last night, Bill O'Reilly, who's a talk show host, who's heard that I have said this about hundreds of thousands of veterans who don't have a place to live, and were homeless. And he challenged me about whether that's true or not, whether, in fact, we have that many veterans who don't have a place to live, and some of them are sleeping under bridges. Well, he ought to start by coming to Las Vegas, if he wants to know what's going on.

“America has the responsibility to do something about this. We do. And the fact that this talk show host, Bill O’Reilly, is willing to speak out that blatantly, when he has no idea what he’s talking about, is an example of how America doesn’t understand the problem, doesn’t understand how serious this issue is.”
chiggerbit
 
Posts: 8594
Joined: Tue May 10, 2005 12:23 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby judasdisney » Fri Jan 18, 2008 5:40 am

In addition to Scaife and Murdoch, more Neocons & Right-Wingers are coming out in favor of Hillary, or against Edwards:

Jonah Goldberg

Charles Krauthammer

Dick Morris

I think it's exceptionally important not to misinterpret this as (a) Republicans "coming to their senses" as many progressives are disturbingly interpreting it; or (b) evidence of the Grand Left/Right conspiracy, as many Alex Jones-ites are interpreting it.

Once again, I'd like to point to the Pinochet/Allende alliance in 1973 Chile, in the months before Allende was killed and Chile's democracy was overthrown. I do believe that the Clintons may be deluded enough to think that they're (trying to be) playing self-styled "Good Cop" to the Bush Crime Family's "Bad Cop," but I think it's the Clintons' own strings that are getting pulled.

I expect to see more "surprise" Right-Wing support for Hillary in the weeks to come.
judasdisney
 
Posts: 832
Joined: Tue Jun 20, 2006 3:32 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby Searcher08 » Fri Jan 18, 2008 11:03 am

Edwards has always reminded me of the grown-up Damien Thorn from The Omen movies. Very good lucking, bright and eerily... too-good-to-be-true. I dont think the AntiChrist would manifest in anything as fugly as all the other candidates...
User avatar
Searcher08
 
Posts: 5887
Joined: Thu Dec 20, 2007 10:21 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby sunny » Fri Jan 18, 2008 12:45 pm

Searcher08 wrote:Edwards has always reminded me of the grown-up Damien Thorn from The Omen movies. Very good lucking, bright and eerily... too-good-to-be-true. I dont think the AntiChrist would manifest in anything as fugly as all the other candidates...


LOL, that reminded me of a conversation I had with a young co-worker of mine right after the '04 election. She was relieved Kerry hadn't won because her mother (and apparently many others) had insisted he was the Antichrist. I told her if Kerry were the AC he would have won. You should have seen the look of confusion this statement caused. :lol:

But I don't think we have to worry about Edwards being the Antichrist either. I imagine the AC will 'bring together' many different factions that support him with a cult-like fervor.

Speaking of Obama... he seems to have lost that glow-y aura of late. The race-baiting war between he and Clinton took something out of him, more's the pity. It would have been nice if he had been deflated due to his phony progressive credentials, but there you have it. The Clinton's really are the masters of the political game.
Choose love
sunny
 
Posts: 5220
Joined: Mon May 16, 2005 10:18 pm
Location: Alabama
Blog: View Blog (1)

Previous

Return to General Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests