rigorousintuition.ca

It is refreshing, by the way, to hear a candidate who does not use the words "I" and "me" all of the time.

Recent quotes from Edwards:

Corporate greed and political calculation have taken over our government and sold out the middle class. That is wrong. It doesn't say 'life, liberty and the pursuit of endless corporate profits' in the Declaration of Independence.

...

We have a fight in front of us, we have a fight for the future of this country. We need someone who is going to step into that arena on your behalf, someone who is ready for that fight, somebody who has got it inside, somebody who has the toughness and strength and fight.

...

I hear all these candidates talking about how we're going to bring about the big, bold change that America needs. And I hear some people saying that they think we can sit down at a table with drug companies, oil companies and insurance companies, negotiate with them and they will voluntarily give their power away. This is a fantasy.

...

We don't need a candidate -- or, for that matter, a president -- who believes that their job is to get along with business, or that the way to turn things around in America is to have a pleasant conversation with business. This has been the chain around our collective necks for lo these many decades. We need a president who, first and foremost, understands the interests of working people and, then, asks the question: how can business serve those interests?

We need a president who understands what it means to have trade that benefits people, not corporations.

We need a president who understands that the greed of the health care industry is literally killing people.

We need a president who understands what it means to support unions.

We have an epic fight in front of us, and anybody who thinks that's not true is living in a fantasy world. How long are we going to let insurance companies, pharmaceutical companies run this country? Every time this has happened in our country, the American people have risen up and taken action.

FourthBase wrote:
Might just be words, but Edwards is talking the talk right now.

I applaud him for his words. Its seems to me he is latching onto the Ron Paul phenomena, but maybe he has learned a lot since 2004 and is jaded himself. Why isn't Al Gore running also? If he truly wants to save the Earth, I'm sure many jaded Americans would vote hand over fist for him, and what better prospect than being US prez. Perhaps he knows more than Edwards?
Also, nice to see Cynthia throw her hat into the ring. I would consider voting for Edwards, but I'm very leery.

Brentos wrote:

FourthBase wrote:
Might just be words, but Edwards is talking the talk right now.

I applaud him for his words. Its seems to me he is latching onto the Ron Paul phenomena, but maybe he has learned a lot since 2004 and is jaded himself. Why isn't Al Gore running also? If he truly wants to save the Earth, I'm sure many jaded Americans would vote hand over fist for him, and what better prospect than being US prez. Perhaps he knows more than Edwards?

Also, nice to see Cynthia throw her hat into the ring. I would consider voting for Edwards, but I'm very leery.

I heard Edwards speak several times late in the 2004 campaign. I don't see any big change since then. I read this everywhere now: we can't trust Edwards because he is singing a different tune than he once did. It started from Clinton supporters, and I thought WTF are they talking about? That will never get legs, but sadly it has. I think it is an intentional smear campaign by the Clinton folks.

But even if Edwards had changed his tune, so what? "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines" as Ralph Waldo Emerson said about politicians.

The power of the spoken word is 90% of the job of being president, IMHO. The Republicans understand that, and Bush has used the power of the bully pulpit to devastating effect, but Democrats approach political candidates as though they were shopping for a consumer item - assessing the qualities and features of the "product" as based on the most superficial things - the highly over-rated "positions" on "issues" nonsense, all defined by the mass media and right wing think tanks.

There is an enormous difference between these two statements:

HRC: I will give you health care with my plan.

Edwards: It is the insurance and pharmaceutical corporations who are in the way of decent health care and we need to fight them.

The first is a case of pandering and promising things to people to get their votes.

The second is true leadership - a rallying call to arms.

I don’t think that Kucinich, Paul, nor Edwards are saying anything different than they ever have, although as I said Kucinich has turned a little new-agey on us and Paul is being very careful to steer clear of some of the comments he has made throughout his career on race.

Those who are pandering, who are saying what they hope the voters want to hear are unfairly attacking the only candidates who have been consistent over the years.

populistindependent wrote:

Brentos wrote:

FourthBase wrote:
Might just be words, but Edwards is talking the talk right now.

I applaud him for his words. Its seems to me he is latching onto the Ron Paul phenomena, but maybe he has learned a lot since 2004 and is jaded himself. Why isn't Al Gore running also? If he truly wants to save the Earth, I'm sure many jaded Americans would vote hand over fist for him, and what better prospect than being US prez. Perhaps he knows more than Edwards?

Also, nice to see Cynthia throw her hat into the ring. I would consider voting for Edwards, but I'm very leery.

I heard Edwards speak several times late in the 2004 campaign. I don't see any big change since then. I read this everywhere now: we can't trust Edwards because he is singing a different tune than he once did. It started from Clinton supporters, and I thought WTF are they talking about? That will never get legs, but sadly it has. I think it is an intentional smear campaign by the Clinton folks.

But even if Edwards had changed his tune, so what? "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines" as Ralph Waldo Emerson said about politicians.

The power of the spoken word is 90% of the job of being president, IMHO. The Republicans understand that, and Bush has used the power of the bully pulpit to devastating effect, but Democrats approach political candidates as though they were shopping for a consumer item - assessing the qualities and features of the "product" as based on the most superficial things - the highly over-rated "positions" on "issues" nonsense, all defined by the mass media and right wing think tanks.

There is an enormous difference between these two statements:

HRC: I will give you health care with my plan.

Edwards: It is the insurance and pharmaceutical corporations who are in the way of decent health care and we need to fight them.

The first is a case of pandering and promising things to people to get their votes.

The second is true leadership - a rallying call to arms.

I don’t think that Kucinich, Paul, nor Edwards are saying anything different than they ever have, although as I said Kucinich has turned a little new-agey on us and Paul is being very careful to steer clear of some of the comments he has made throughout his career on race.

Those who are pandering, who are saying what they hope the voters want to hear are unfairly attacking the only candidates who have been consistent over the years.

Edwards has a good record for prosecuting corporations for the 'little guy', iirc. I give him a lot of credence for that. I'm waiting to see if his ambition to team up with Kerry was mere 'youthful' ambition or genuine ambition
The more good candidates the better.

As far as Paul being a racist, well, his main thrust is that welfare causes the dysfunctionality in minority/urban communities. IMO, his racism lies in him ignoring the fact that institutional racism & divestment is what causes black communities to rely on welfare in the first place. His views, in general, are no different than many white people in america, who seem to not have the capability to understand the 'black experience' in america.
There are black scholars,more and more, who believe that welfare & integration has contributed to the woes of black people. Since welfare only makes males & females who cant get jobs, less appealing, while the divestment & racism is never cured.
(iirc, malcolm x believed integration could never overcome implicit racism in america, but became more optimistic)

Brentos wrote:There are black scholars, more and more, who believe that welfare & integration has contributed to the woes of black people.

Yes. I am among those who might say that.

But suspicion of Paul and others, who have seamlessly switched from old time racism to this new politically correct stance is understandable, is it not?

The ideas that the Black community relies on welfare, or that a hand out is what people are looking for when they talk about racism, are themselves racist concepts, IMHO.

What is ignored is all of the ways that whites get welfare, and how pervasive and built-in white welfare already is.

I've noticed a couple of events in the last week or so that made me wonder if the political establishment was deliberately working against Edwards. One was the decision last week by the FCC to deny his campaign matching funds for contributions collected for him by ActBlue. Could this be payoff by Daddy Bush to Bill for his chumminess recently, since this can't but help Hillary (as well as Obama)?

The other was a headline and article at TPM indicating that a poll showed Obama and Hillary out-pacing each Republican candidate in an individual match-up. What the headline and the article failed to mention was that when the results of poll were actually read, Edwards came in ahead of Hillary, although behind Obama, although you'd never know that Edwards' name had even been considered in the poll by reading the article.

populistindependent wrote:

Brentos wrote:There are black scholars, more and more, who believe that welfare & integration has contributed to the woes of black people.

Yes. I am among those who might say that.

But suspicion of Paul and others, who have seamlessly switched from old time racism to this new politically correct stance is understandable, is it not?

The ideas that the Black community relies on welfare, or that a hand out is what people are looking for when they talk bout racism, are themselves racist concepts, IMHO.

What is ignored is all of the ways that whites get welfare, and how pervasive and built-in white welfare already is.

I remember Chlamor, who I dont agree with most of the time, post comments from RP during the LA riots, a very emotional time. I did get an arrogant attitude from RP, even though it came across as a means to demote welfare & socialism, but his comments were indicative of white misunderstanding of afro-americans. Does Edwards get it though?
Stereotypes fly free in the US. Its very sad. I want to hope that the young MX was wrong, but I cant blame african americans for being PO'ed.

I agree about the white welfare, it is implicit to whites only. They think it applies to everyone, maybe it is brainwashing
African americans deserve exactly what indigenous americans recieved, not just money, but free college & education. That barely makes up for 200+ years of getting the shit kicked out of them.

Brentos wrote:

I'm waiting to see if his ambition to team up with Kerry was mere 'youthful' ambition or genuine ambition

What better place to get rid of a populist spouting about "Two America's" than with a phony put up job who was destined to lose?


chiggerbit wrote:

I've noticed a couple of events in the last week or so that made me wonder if the political establishment was deliberately working against Edwards.

CNN poll -- Edwards is only Democrat who beats all Republicans
by: cvllelaw
Tue Dec 11, 2007 at 21:25:17 PM EST

According to a CNN poll out today, on a national basis, of the top 3 Democrats and the top 4 Republicans, only John Edwards beats Giuliani, Romney, Huckabee and McCain. McCain beats Hillary Clinton and ties Barack Obama. http://i.a.cnn.net/cnn/2007/im...
McCain is clearly the strongest Republican at this point, though he seems to have little chance of getting the nomination. And Huckabee is still largely unknown among the electorate as a whole, so his numbers will surely look artificially low at this point in the head-to-heads.

Edwards is the strongest Democrat, though his chances of getting the nomination would have to be regarded as not great at the moment.

http://www.democraticcentral.com/showDi ... aryId=1250

Also, I refer you to Glenn Greewalds article today, quoted extensively above. As GG points out, the msm act as if Edwards does not exist, despite his consistantly good polls.

popindie, quoting Edwards:

...We need a president who, first and foremost, understands the interests of working people and, then, asks the question: how can business serve those interests?

We need a president who understands what it means to have trade that benefits people, not corporations.

We need a president who understands that the greed of the health care industry is literally killing people.

We need a president who understands what it means to support unions.

We have an epic fight in front of us, and anybody who thinks that's not true is living in a fantasy world. How long are we going to let insurance companies, pharmaceutical companies run this country? Every time this has happened in our country, the American people have risen up and taken action.

If he really means the things he's saying, no wonder they are ignoring him. Right now, that is the best strategy as far as money/power is concerned. If he wins Iowa, then it's on and they will try to destroy him by any means necessary.

sunny wrote:If he really means the things he's saying, no wonder they are ignoring him. Right now, that is the best strategy as far as money/power is concerned. If he wins Iowa, then it's on and they will try to destroy him by any means necessary.

Even if he doesn't! Just the words getting out there and being heard are a threat to those in power.

Hey sunny I just noticed your sig line.

Whatever merit there is to Edwards' candidacy, it is silly to consider him as an outsider to "those in power" or whatever.

Edwards is a powerful politician, a former U.S. senator, an outrageously wealthy attorney and has already been so very close to being in the White House, as vice president.

I applaud the rich and powerful who spend their time trying to make things more equitable for the rest of us, but let's not pretend they aren't the rich and powerful.

Same goes for all the other so-called insurgents, including people who have been in Congress for three or more decades, such as that Ron Paul character.

populistindependent wrote:
Hey sunny I just noticed your sig line.

Hey popindie, don't worry about it, I knew what you meant and I agreed with you completely.

Full disclosure:

I have been giving money to four candidates: primarily Edwards and Kucinich -- less than $75 each -- and $20 to Obama and Dodd. In 2004, I gave Howard Dean $950 and was an alternate state delegate for Dean, having volunteered about 80 hours for the Dean campaign.

In 2004, I would not have walked across the street to piss on Kerry or Edwards.

I have changed my mind about Edwards. But I don't believe he has any chance, and I'm saving my limited resources this time around.

In 2008, I don't feel I "have a dog in this fight," because I'm leaving the country whatever happens. It's too late, I believe. However, since I'm a sucker for lost causes, here's how I see it:

2008 is the watershed election of the past 100 years. U.S. history appears to me to run in 70 year cycles. This is the "Last Chance Election" to avoid the next 70 years being a Fascist Era in the U.S. (I don't believe that the U.S. could survive such an era, because of nukes. The hyperaggressive, Neocon-controlled U.S. will be confronted by a China-Russian alliance.)

2008 is the Last Chance for the Democrats to choose between being "FDR Democrats" and "Clinton Democrats." Clintonism was largely successful during the 1990s as a giant "Fire Sale" in which the DLC tried to create a hybrid between Reaganism (which is anti-New Deal) and New Deal-Lite. Corporations obviously did not appreciate the gesture, because corporations are rapacious and stupid and bottomless black holes of greed. So it was stupid to expect them to see their own enlightened self-interest.

After the Bush Era, there is nothing left for the Clintons to sell of the Democratic Party Soul. There are no regulations left to "relax" and no interest rates left to cut (and would the Clinton Era ever have been successful without Alan Greenspan and OPEC's cooperation? Perhaps AG and OPEC were the Grand Enablers of such an era, for a strategic positioning in a Grand Chessgame).

Edwards is the final standard-bearer for New Deal politics. If the economic collapse of the U.S. dollar happens in 2008 or 2009, Hillary Clinton will not pursue FDR's policies. Huckabee might produce a mixed-bag of confused reaction. Edwards would likely be another FDR, in policy terms.

Roosevelt was considered a "traitor to his class," and remains hated by the Top 1% all these years later. Hitler was regarded by Wall Street as a model for the union of Capital and State. In the 1930s, Wall Street had a significant pro-fascist streak. The Business Plot that nearly overthrew FDR and U.S. democracy is not waiting, this time around, for Edwards to get elected. They are in full pre-emptive smear mode now.

As I see it, the problem is that Obama and Edwards are going to split the "Progressive/Left" vote of the Democratic Party. This will produce a Hillary Clinton nomination, although it may be an extremely weak nomination. It's extremely unfortunate (and probably by design) that Obama is attacking Edwards; an Obama/Edwards (or Edwards/Obama) ticket would be a guaranteed lock on the nomination.

Hillary Clinton failed her first attempt at taking the D.C. Bar Exam, according to Carl Bernstein's biography of her. Hillary Clinton (we are told) believed her husband's lie, then as Senator, Hillary Clinton (we are told) believed Bush's WMD lie and voted to authorize his unlimited powers to declare pre-emptive war (a violation of the Constitution in itself). HRC is nowhere near as smart or shrewd a politician or leader as we are led to believe. She has shown zero leadership or courage in the Senate against the 24%-approval-rated Bush.

But I believe that by design, HRC is being programmed into the White House. Any third-party candidacy (Paul/Kucinich or McCain/Lieberman) will split the electoral vote and throw the election into the (Democratically-controlled) House of Representatives, who will choose her as President, which will weaken her Presidency even farther (by design).

As with the aftermath of Iran-Contra, the new President Clinton will not pursue justice or investigations.

With considerable reservations, I would support Edwards or Kucinich, or anybody besides Clinton or Giuliani. Even a Huckabee would buy time and create wrinkles against the Plutocracy.

But the system is indeed rigged; the media is so tightly controlled that nearly a million people flooded the Senate yesterday (December 18 ) with phone calls and e-mails in support of Dodd's filibuster, and the media has not whispered a peep about it. A total media blackout. We are in the dark. We are in the era of Pravda, except that instead of one "State Apparatus Media" we are given the illusion of four or five.

Dodd is a strange figure in all of this. Although I've given him money based on his apparent backbone in the Senate on the FISA issue...

...Peter Dale Scott's Deep Politics and the Death of JFK has a lot to say about Christopher Dodd's father, Thomas, who played a possible role in the deaths of JFK and Oswald. Thomas Dodd also had numerous ties to Far-Right and very fascist individuals, as well as to organized crime. This makes his son's apparently noble (albeit very belated) actions a mystery and I maintain some skepticism.

There's a lot going on in the U.S. election of 2008. (Where there's smoke, there's fire).

Perhaps that's because the Elite have not yet made their Totalitarian Control 100% airtight.

And although I see no hope -- because, let's not forget, those digital Voting Machines are still in Right-Wing hands, and they could engineer a Hillary Clinton victory in Iowa and the primaries to suit their opaque ultimate purposes -- the truth is, sooner or later, the American people will have to choose:

The American people can pour into the streets now like the Bolivians have been doing, and with utter dignity and solemnity, the Americans could demand democracy... Or, a handful of Americans can pour into the street later, after the military coup against Patsy Caesar Hillary Clinton, and then the Kent State Pt. 2/the American Tianenmen Square Massacre will be the alternate choice for Americans.

Because the Top 1% aren't going to settle for sharing power with you little people. They want it all.

And a lot of people, even on this discussion board (of all places), still refuse to believe that fascism is fanatic enough (or even exists at all) to want to overthrow democracy and subjugate everyone to a Totalitarian System. And because I see people like this every day, even here on this board, that's why I have no hope that Edwards, Kucinich, Gravel, Huckabee, or anyone who has no political machine, can even get a foot in the door.

Sorry to say, it's almost time for LIGHTS OUT.

populistindependent wrote:
The ideas that the Black community relies on welfare, or that a hand out is what people are looking for when they talk about racism, are themselves racist concepts, IMHO.

.

btw, I agree with you that stereotyping people that way is racist. The news media in America like to put a black face on poverty most of the time though. Many white people who don't know any african americans then get a biased viewpoint.

judasdisney wrote:Full disclosure:

I have been giving money to four candidates: primarily Edwards and Kucinich -- less than $75 each -- and $20 to Obama and Dodd. In 2004, I gave Howard Dean $950 and was an alternate state delegate for Dean, having volunteered about 80 hours for the Dean campaign.

In 2004, I would not have walked across the street to piss on Kerry or Edwards.

I have changed my mind about Edwards. But I don't believe he has any chance, and I'm saving my limited resources this time around.

In 2008, I don't feel I "have a dog in this fight," because I'm leaving the country whatever happens. It's too late, I believe. However, since I'm a sucker for lost causes, here's how I see it:

2008 is the watershed election of the past 100 years. U.S. history appears to me to run in 70 year cycles. This is the "Last Chance Election" to avoid the next 70 years being a Fascist Era in the U.S. (I don't believe that the U.S. could survive such an era, because of nukes. The hyperaggressive, Neocon-controlled U.S. will be confronted by a China-Russian alliance.)

2008 is the Last Chance for the Democrats to choose between being "FDR Democrats" and "Clinton Democrats." Clintonism was largely successful during the 1990s as a giant "Fire Sale" in which the DLC tried to create a hybrid between Reaganism (which is anti-New Deal) and New Deal-Lite. Corporations obviously did not appreciate the gesture, because corporations are rapacious and stupid and bottomless black holes of greed. So it was stupid to expect them to see their own enlightened self-interest.

After the Bush Era, there is nothing left for the Clintons to sell of the Democratic Party Soul. There are no regulations left to "relax" and no interest rates left to cut (and would the Clinton Era ever have been successful without Alan Greenspan and OPEC's cooperation? Perhaps AG and OPEC were the Grand Enablers of such an era, for a strategic positioning in a Grand Chessgame).

Edwards is the final standard-bearer for New Deal politics. If the economic collapse of the U.S. dollar happens in 2008 or 2009, Hillary Clinton will not pursue FDR's policies. Huckabee might produce a mixed-bag of confused reaction. Edwards would likely be another FDR, in policy terms.

Roosevelt was considered a "traitor to his class," and remains hated by the Top 1% all these years later. Hitler was regarded by Wall Street as a model for the union of Capital and State. In the 1930s, Wall Street had a significant pro-fascist streak. The Business Plot that nearly overthrew FDR and U.S. democracy is not waiting, this time around, for Edwards to get elected. They are in full pre-emptive smear mode now.

As I see it, the problem is that Obama and Edwards are going to split the "Progressive/Left" vote of the Democratic Party. This will produce a Hillary Clinton nomination, although it may be an extremely weak nomination. It's extremely unfortunate (and probably by design) that Obama is attacking Edwards; an Obama/Edwards (or Edwards/Obama) ticket would be a guaranteed lock on the nomination.

Hillary Clinton failed her first attempt at taking the D.C. Bar Exam, according to Carl Bernstein's biography of her. Hillary Clinton (we are told) believed her husband's lie, then as Senator, Hillary Clinton (we are told) believed Bush's WMD lie and voted to authorize his unlimited powers to declare pre-emptive war (a violation of the Constitution in itself). HRC is nowhere near as smart or shrewd a politician or leader as we are led to believe. She has shown zero leadership or courage in the Senate against the 24%-approval-rated Bush.

But I believe that by design, HRC is being programmed into the White House. Any third-party candidacy (Paul/Kucinich or McCain/Lieberman) will split the electoral vote and throw the election into the (Democratically-controlled) House of Representatives, who will choose her as President, which will weaken her Presidency even farther (by design).

As with the aftermath of Iran-Contra, the new President Clinton will not pursue justice or investigations.

With considerable reservations, I would support Edwards or Kucinich, or anybody besides Clinton or Giuliani. Even a Huckabee would buy time and create wrinkles against the Plutocracy.

But the system is indeed rigged; the media is so tightly controlled that nearly a million people flooded the Senate yesterday (December 18 ) with phone calls and e-mails in support of Dodd's filibuster, and the media has not whispered a peep about it. A total media blackout. We are in the dark. We are in the era of Pravda, except that instead of one "State Apparatus Media" we are given the illusion of four or five.

Dodd is a strange figure in all of this. Although I've given him money based on his apparent backbone in the Senate on the FISA issue...

...Peter Dale Scott's Deep Politics and the Death of JFK has a lot to say about Christopher Dodd's father, Thomas, who played a possible role in the deaths of JFK and Oswald. Thomas Dodd also had numerous ties to Far-Right and very fascist individuals, as well as to organized crime. This makes his son's apparently noble (albeit very belated) actions a mystery and I maintain some skepticism.

There's a lot going on in the U.S. election of 2008. (Where there's smoke, there's fire).

Perhaps that's because the Elite have not yet made their Totalitarian Control 100% airtight.

And although I see no hope -- because, let's not forget, those digital Voting Machines are still in Right-Wing hands, and they could engineer a Hillary Clinton victory in Iowa and the primaries to suit their opaque ultimate purposes -- the truth is, sooner or later, the American people will have to choose:

The American people can pour into the streets now like the Bolivians have been doing, and with utter dignity and solemnity, the Americans could demand democracy... Or, a handful of Americans can pour into the street later, after the military coup against Patsy Caesar Hillary Clinton, and then the Kent State Pt. 2/the American Tianenmen Square Massacre will be the alternate choice for Americans.

Because the Top 1% aren't going to settle for sharing power with you little people. They want it all.

And a lot of people, even on this discussion board (of all places), still refuse to believe that fascism is fanatic enough (or even exists at all) to want to overthrow democracy and subjugate everyone to a Totalitarian System. And because I see people like this every day, even here on this board, that's why I have no hope that Edwards, Kucinich, Gravel, Huckabee, or anyone who has no political machine, can even get a foot in the door.

Sorry to say, it's almost time for LIGHTS OUT.

Hall of Fame post.

JD, do you mind if I cut and paste that on a couple other forums I belong to? It's the most insightful analysis of the 2008 election from our perspective I've read so far, anywhere.

BTW, Hillary failing the DC bar exam seems pathetic. Not sure if things were different back then, but for as long as I've been aware the DC bar exam only consists of the multistate multiple choice test, there's no state portion, no essays.

This notion of Edwards maybe being legit is exciting, since he has an infinitely better chance of winning than Kucinich. In retrospect, it infuriates me that he's basically been blacked out in the campaign coverage.

Speaking of Billary not being too bright (sorry, I can't tell where Bill leaves off and Hill begins), Robert Parry has a great article up now, which I think perfectly illustrates that point:

http://www.consortiumnews.com/2007/121907.html