Who's Afraid of John Edwards?

[populistindependent]

Here we go again with the Democrat "savior" to counter what the bad ol' Republicans have done.

So the political discourse is to pick the correct "savior".

Sheesh, folks, i would think by now we would have a clue.

NO CANDIDATE WORTH P*SSING ON comes from their ranks.

Sigh, we really need a second political party in this country.

You are locked into the very thinking you are criticizing others for.

Why do we need another party? So we have better personal choices?

What we need is a mass movement of the people to resist tyranny. That has nothing to so with choices or parties any more than it does with hobbies or social clubs.

So you want a candidate and a party that are worth pissing on? Why? How? Then what? People can make that selection? Or....?

It is easy to say that it all sucks - of course it does - and that none of the politicans represent much of a choice - of course they don't. But then to turn around and suggest that of we had better candidates or a better party contradicts that.

Not choosing is as bad as choosing, since in both cases the context is the same, and so is the motivation and the practical effect.

Some people are always going to look for a savior. Some people are always going to be fooled. Some people are going to look for the party or the candidate to be the ultimate answer and fail to look any deeper. So what? Give them a better savior? Is that the answer?

[Hugo Farnsworth]

I rush to post something, forgetting sometimes that no one can see my face or see my hands waving.

Two political parties that speak from opposite sides of the same mouth are the same party. We need a new mouth. I agree with you completely that a movement will be necessary first for this to happen.

We (those fortunate enough to have a computer and can type stuff on a forum) are not going to do ANYTHING until the system breaks down to a point where we get angry enough to do something. A mass movement. From that, hopefully, comes a political consensus, and the birth of a new political party. We cannot and should not settle for one of the parties in power to pay lip service to this--nothing will come of it.

I went out on the streets (well, a park actually) and protested against the pending invasion of Iraq. It was worldwide. Nothing changed. We are too comfortable and well-behaved. Our grandfathers and great grandfathers faced machine guns to have unions. We will just have to reach that point again.

That scares me. The PTB have enacted draconian legislation and created a bureaucracy to deal with this in a very heavy-handed way. So be it. They grossly underestimate the tenacity and ingenuity of the American people.

[populistindependent]

I rush to post something, forgetting sometimes that no one can see my face or see my hands waving.

Two political parties that speak from opposite sides of the same mouth are the same party. We need a new mouth. I agree with you completely that a movement will be necessary first for this to happen.

We (those fortunate enough to have a computer and can type stuff on a forum) are not going to do ANYTHING until the system breaks down to a point where we get angry enough to do something. A mass movement. From that, hopefully, comes a political consensus, and the birth of a new political party. We cannot and should not settle for one of the parties in power to pay lip service to this--nothing will come of it.

I went out on the streets (well, a park actually) and protested against the pending invasion of Iraq. It was worldwide. Nothing changed. We are too comfortable and well-behaved. Our grandfathers and great grandfathers faced machine guns to have unions. We will just have to reach that point again.

That scares me. The PTB have enacted draconian legislation and created a bureaucracy to deal with this in a very heavy-handed way. So be it. They grossly underestimate the tenacity and ingenuity of the American people.

Good stuff there, Hugo. Glad to meet you. I have more to say. You probably do, as well. Looking forward to it.

Here is a pattern I see us falling into again and again - "once 'A' happens, then (and only then) 'B' can happen" - with "A" usually being something highly unlikely and completely out of our control, or something that has already happened or is happening but that we are missing.

Once all the people are sufficiently enlightened.

Once the sheeple wake up.

Once things get really bad.

Once we expose the PTB.

Once we figure out 911.

Once people are really hurting.

Once we elect so and so.

Once we have a new party.

Yeah, then things will start happening. And will I ever be ready. Or maybe if I get bored waiting I will just leave the country or something. Meanwhile, I will be busy tending my own little personal spiritual garden.

For most of the people in this country as well as abroad, the battle started without us a long time ago.

[sijepuis+]

populist independent wrote:

Overthrowing the ruling class (and if we aren't interested in that, what are we talking about?) is not going to be done by any president or any politician. It is going to be done on the ground, through organizing and building solidarity.

Most of this is up to us, not up to some politician. The power structure takes a lot of work to hold together. The answer is not a counter-program, a new power structure to replace the old. The answer is to look for any cracks in the armor - no matter where they come from or who starts them - and expand and exploit them.

I agree 100% with these statements. If there's ever to be any change, it will take place from the bottom up. And the key is to look for, understand, and exploit, inherent weaknesses in the infrastructure on which power relies.

The point I was trying to make earlier in the thread is that endless discussions of the finer points of one candidate over another tend to create a false sense of expectation and satisfaction, when the real, hard work towards change is going to have to come from us, as you pointed out, PI.

My concern is that that very expectation works somewhat like a narcotic, against what otherwise might be a natural inclination to recognize our own responsibility.

[sijepuis+]

One last word on Edwards:

CFR used John Edwards & Jack Kemp to trash Putin

John Edwards and Jack Kemp were appointed to lead a CFR task force which concocted the pretext for an all-out assault on the Putin. This is where the idea that Putin is "rolling back democracy" began. In their article "Russia's Wrong Direction," Edwards and Kemp state that a "strategic partnership" with Russia is no longer possible. They note that the government has become increasingly "authoritarian" and that the society is growing less "open and pluralistic."

Kemp and Edwards provided the ideological foundation upon which the entire public relations campaign against Putin has been built. And it is quite an impressive campaign. A Google News search shows roughly 1,400 articles from the various news services on Putin. Virtually all of them contain exactly the same rhetoric, the same buzzwords, the same spurious claims, the same slanders. It is impossible to find even one article out of 1,400 that diverges the slightest bit from the talking points which originated at the Council on Foreign Relations.

Yup, he's one of 'em.

[chiggerbit]

Interesting how the Edwards and the Clinton campaigns respond to questions lately. Here's Edwards:

"....I believe that anyone running for president has an obligation to listen to the voices of regular people and answer their questions directly. In these critical final days, I want every Iowan who has a question to know exactly where I stand and what I'll do to take on the special interests and give middle class Americans a voice.

That is why, with our final, 38-county bus tour off to a great start, we're launching a program which will give undecided Iowans the opportunity to ask me questions about any issues that concern them and get answers before caucus night.

Please click the link below to watch videos of questions I've already answered here in Iowa and submit your own if you're still making up your mind. Then, I'm counting on you to pass this link along to anyone you know who's still undecided:

www.johnedwards.com/askjohn

I'm proud to be the only candidate who has visited and taken questions in all of Iowa's 99 counties. I've learned a great deal traveling across the state. You put tough questions to me and the other candidates, and you demand direct answers - as you should.....

And here's Hillary.



http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washing ... ont-a.html

"As she races through Iowa in the days before next week's caucuses, Hillary Clinton is taking few chances. She tells crowds that it’s their turn to “pick a president,’’ but over the last two days she has not invited them to ask her any questions.

Before the brief Christmas break, the New York senator had been setting aside time after campaign speeches to hear from the audience. Now when she’s done speaking, her theme songs blare from loudspeakers, preventing any kind of public Q&A.

She was no more inviting when a television reporter approached her after a rally on Thursday and asked if she was “moved’’ by Benazir Bhutto’s assassination. Clinton turned away without answering.

Her daughter, Chelsea, had the same reaction when a reporter approached her with a question.

Hillary Clinton’s no-question policy didn’t sit well with some of the Iowans who came to see her speak......

[Hugo Farnsworth]

The Putin/CFR thing reminds me of the anecdote John Pilger was relating to his audience during his "Freedom Next Time" address.

During the Cold War, some Soviet journalists toured the USA. At the end, the host asked them of their impression. The Russian spokesman replied, "I have to tell you, we were astonished to find, after reading all of the newspapers and watching TV day after day, that all of the opinions on all of the vital issues are the same. To get that result in our country, we send journalists to the gulag--we even tear out their fingernails. Here, you don't have to do any of that. What's the secret?"

[populistindependent]

The point I was trying to make earlier in the thread is that endless discussions of the finer points of one candidate over another tend to create a false sense of expectation and satisfaction, when the real, hard work towards change is going to have to come from us, as you pointed out, PI.

My concern is that that very expectation works somewhat like a narcotic, against what otherwise might be a natural inclination to recognize our own responsibility.

That is the danger. I agree completely.

[chiggerbit]

Went to one of Elizabeth Edwards' community meetings today. What a woman. After seven years of Uncurious George and Plastic Laura, all I can say is what a phenomenal difference.

People were packed like sardines into this small cafe to hear her. Hard to describe Elizabeth. Funny, very bright and informed, but "average". As she started to talk, she bumped a John Edwards sign that was taped to the cafe's bar behind her, and she turns around and sticks it back again, saying, sorry, it's the mom in me. A couple of minutes later someone in the audience's cellphone rings, and she says to answer it to make sure it isn't one of the kids, then says again, it's the mom in me. Her own speech is short, because she wants to give people time to ask questions, but warns that she gives long answers. The next thing you know, she's talking about hogs and vertical integration(?), or something like that, with one of the farmers. No matter what the question, she fielded it very competently.

I came away from the meeting wanting to vote for HER for president, and it wasn't until I was on my way home that I remembered that she has terminal cancer.

[populistindependent]

The next thing you know, she's talking about hogs and vertical integration(?), or something like that, with one of the farmers.

Important issue in agriculture - large corporations owning the entire production process, from feed lot to packing house to retail consumer product. "Vertical integration," that is called - she was fluent in that subject?? Very impressive.

[chiggerbit]

Ok, thanks, pi, now I see what it was about. I had a hard time hearing the farmer's end of the discussion.

Here's an interesting quote from Edwards this weekend. Do you suppose he means AIPAC? This almost has the feel of there being an inside story going on here. Could it be he's got some idea of who Hillary plans on appointing to her administration?

"For almost 10 years of being in public life, I've never taken money from a Washington lobbyist or a special interest PAC, and I want to continue that commitment by pledging to the American people that when I'm president of the United States that corporate lobbyists or anyone who has lobbied for a foreign government will not be permitted to work in my White House,"

[AlicetheKurious]

chiggerbit said:

Here's an interesting quote from Edwards this weekend. Do you suppose he means AIPAC? This almost has the feel of there being an inside story going on here. Could it be he's got some idea of who Hillary plans on appointing to her administration?

"For almost 10 years of being in public life, I've never taken money from a Washington lobbyist or a special interest PAC, and I want to continue that commitment by pledging to the American people that when I'm president of the United States that corporate lobbyists or anyone who has lobbied for a foreign government will not be permitted to work in my White House,"

I was just watching "Meet the Press" or "Face the Nation" or something like that (ok, I wasn't really concentrating). Edwards was the guest, and he said the exact same thing -- really perked me up.

One can always hope.

[sunny]

I was just watching "Meet the Press" or "Face the Nation" or something like that (ok, I wasn't really concentrating). Edwards was the guest, and he said the exact same thing -- really perked me up.

One can always hope.

Learning and growing, I tell ya, learning and growing.

chiggerbit wrote:

What a woman.

Since Elizabeth's terminal diagnosis I believe Edwards is trying to become the kind of candidate/president SHE would want him to be. If he's trying to impress her, that's alright by me. I remember reading how angry she was that her husband's consultants had persuaded him to vote for the AUMF. Considering he's apologized for being wrong, let's hope he'll listen to her from now on. Loved her smackdown of MAnn Coulter.

[sunny]

Nader Endorses Edwards:

Nader Throws Support to Edwards, Blasts Clinton
by David Paul Kuhn
MUSCATINE, Iowa — Ralph Nader unleashed on Hillary Rodham Clinton Monday - criticizing her for being soft on defense spending and a chum of big business - and expressed his strong support for John Edwards.

In an 11th hour effort to encourage liberal Iowans to “recognize” Edwards by “giving him a victory,” the activist and former presidential contender said in an interview that Clinton will “pander to corporate interest groups” if elected.

Nader specifically accused Clinton of failing to challenge military spending because “she is a woman who doesn’t want to be labeled as soft on defense and she doesn’t want to be shown as taking on big business.”

As Clinton campaigned through a snowstorm in southeast Iowa, pledging to “bring about the changes we need,” Nader accused the Democratic senator from New York of using empty rhetoric.
more

http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/01/01/6100/

Kossack calls the endorsement a "kiss of death":

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/ ... 470/428706

[chiggerbit]

Well, I'm off to caucus for Edwards, for all the good it will do. Looks like Obama is going to take my precinct. Oh, well, at least my gravel road got plowed out today, first time since a last Thursday, after two snowfalls, totalling 10 or so inches of snow. I won't have to walk the six milkes to town.