A few weeks ago, I gave you my take on Republican presidential pretenders. How about the Dems? In the wake of yesterday's senseless assassination of Benazir Bhutto, one name stands out among the Dems - John Edwards.Hillary Clinton:
Rudy and Hillary played on the Bhutto tragedy to claim we need people like them to keep Americans safe from the world's dangerous thugs. "[D]eep down, in places you don't talk about at parties, you want me on that wall. You need me on that wall."
Although Senator Clinton eventually got around to being "profoundly saddened and outraged," her initial reaction was strangely cold. She ignored a television producer who twice asked her, "Senator, were you moved by Bhutto’s death?”
Everything about her is just a little too calculated, a little too contrived. And why on earth is she claiming to be so experienced? Does she think osmosis establishes presidential creds? If so, Republicans should run Laura Bush. At least people like her.
Clinton's campaign tactics evoke scary memories of Richard Nixon, and that's no surprise. Although she will mobilize disgruntled Republicans like no other Dem, the sad truth is that she's practically one of them. Republican-lite.
Barack Obama:
He's playing up the Bhutto tragedy, too. Chief strategist David Axelrod is already trying this spin:
"Barack Obama had the judgment to oppose the war in Iraq, and he warned at the time it would divert us from Afghanistan and Al Qaeda, and now we see the effect of that."Wow! But can he predict what I'll be eating for breakfast? In case there is any doubt in your mind whether Clinton caused Bhutto's death, Axelrod takes things one step further.
"She was a strong supporter of the war in Iraq, which we would submit, was one of the reasons why we were diverted from Afghanistan, Pakistan and al-Qaeda, who may have been players in this event today, so that’s a judgment she’ll have to defend."Obama is halfway through his first term as a U.S. Senator, and that already gives him more experience than Abraham Lincoln had when he ran for president. He's ready for us.
But are we ready for him? If The Morning Call Reader Forum is any indication, I'm guessing no. Bigotry may in fact be experiencing a revival, even here in the northeast. Call me crazy, but Americans just won't elect a minority candidate whose middle name happens to be Hussein.
John Edwards:
Clinton speaks of her "experience" and Obama is whining, "I told you so." So how did Edwards respond to the news of Bhutto's murder?
"I spoke with the Pakistani Ambassador and then a few minutes ago I spoke with President Musharraf, urging him to continue on the path to democratization, to allow international investigators to come in to determine what happened, what the facts were so that there would be transparency and credibility about what actually occurred and also about the upcoming schedule of elections and that the important thing for America to do in this unstable environment is first of all focus on the tragedy that's occurred. Benazir Bhutto was a strong woman, a courageous woman, someone that I actually spoke at a conference with a few years and she talked about the path to democracy in Pakistan being baptized in blood so she understood the extraordinary risk that she was taking by going back and it's a terrible tragedy for the people of Pakistan, but it's important for America to be a calming influence and provide strength in this environment."Like it or not, the only Democrat who comes close to sounding and more importantly, acting like a president in the face of this crisis, is John Edwards. He's our best hope. The only Democrats who have been elected president since the assassination of JFK - LBJ, Carter, Clinton and Gore - have all been from the south.
Edwards shuns money from corporate special interest PACs or lobbyists. He's the only Democrat with a progressive agenda who can actually be elected. He's campaigning against classic Democratic enemies - corporate power and greed.
"What makes America America is at stake: jobs, the middle class, health care, preserving the environment in the world for future generations.He's always had a very good vision, but I'm now convinced that Edwards is a leader and he's finally earned my vote. Now he just needs a few more.
"But all those things are at risk. And why are they at risk? Because of corporate power and corporate greed in Washington, D.C. And we have to take them on. You can't make a deal with them. You can't hope that they're going to go away. You have to actually be willing to fight. And I want every caucus-goer to know I've been fighting these people and winning my entire life. And if we do this together, rise up together, we can actually make absolutely certain, starting here in Iowa, that we make this country better than we left it."
33 comments:
Edwards is a throwback to a bygone era when snake oil selling, southern ambulance chasers were looked at with esteem. The NC blogosphere says he gets more ass than a rental car and the story about the mistress with the soon-to-be-delivered illegitimate baby is still hanging out there. It's thrilling. It's like a Clinton redux. Don't stop dreaming about tomorrow.
Like Drudge, I consider the National Enquirer to be a credible source of information. Looks like anon703 is in the same camp.
Now then, aboiut that two-headed llama........
Shunning Corporate greed? This man is an ambulance chaser and he is the spawn of a broken legal system. He takes money from the legal community and if there was ever a special interest group, it is the personal injury attorneys, of which he is one. Their special interest is money!
He has managed to rise to the top tier of the people causing medical insurance premiums and malprictice premiums to dive to cost of health care throuh the roof. Doctors (who haven't left town) are doing more tests and surgeries just to cover their butts, thanks to these people.
He has made his money (and by the lifestyle test, lots of it) on the backs of grieving families.
John Edwards !...No corporate money, just preying on the health care system
Now that's ethics!
Please tell me which of these cases was not a valid malpractice or personal injury suit....
http://news.findlaw.com/newsmakers/john.edwards.html
perhaps that 5 year old who was disembowled by a pool drain was just out to score her "piece" of the pie.
Or perhaps the Dr error that led to the amputation of a foot should never have gone to suit....
It's not doctors or attornies who are cranking up the cost of malpractice insurance - it's the insurance companies - and remember, insurance companies only make money by DENYING claims (who is REALLY "preying" on the health system???) - so the idea that limiting damage rewards will benefit doctors or medicine in general is crazy logic. Doing so REWARDS less-than-qualified doctors for their misdeeds and punishes victims.
Let me get this straight. Because Edwards was a successful plaintiff's attorney, that somehow disqualifies him? His southern accent might make our northeastern ears suspicious, but he actually has a pretty good message. Unlike virtually every other candidate, he takes no money from lobbyists. he accepts no PAC money. His message of two Americas is a populist message that will ring true with a lot of us who are hurting.
He's not going to get too many votes from the top 1% of our income earners, but there's a lot more of us in that bottom 99%.
As far as Edwards' love child story, broken by the National Enquirer, the expecting mother has issued a statement denying that Edwards is the father. She claims another fellow named Andrew Young is the father, and he has confirmed that himself. There's a reason why the MSM is not covering this story - it's bullshit.
Bernie O'Hare said...
Unlike virtually every other candidate, he takes no money from lobbyists. he accepts no PAC money. Didn't the firefighyers PAC give to Edwards? Another O'Hare lie just like everything else on his blog. Go Rudy!!!
Didn't the firefighyers PAC give to Edwards? Another O'Hare lie just like everything else on his blog. Go Rudy!!!
You'll notice there is no link to this accusation. I've searched google and have found nothing to substantiate this at all.
But as of 9/30/07, Open Secrets reports the amount of PAC money funding Edwards' campaign. It's 0%.
So who's the liar?
One other point. This post is about the Dem candidates, not Rudy Giuliani. And from what I hear, NYC firefighters are real thrilled with him.
Edwards message is strong BUT...IS HE REALLY ON BOARD with any of it...or is he just pitching to another courtroom? I only hope if and when I decide to run for anything I have that much hair left on my head and a 20th of Edwards CASH STASH. I agree with Bernie that Edward's Bhutto response was top notch. He's a better speaker than Bill Clinton- and that's not easy to do. Bill would be nominated this morning if he decided to run. I grew up in the south and there will always be a "snake-oil salesman" factor attatched to the accentin the eyes of some northerners....but then you don't want to know want they think of us Yankees(Rudy) down there either. On another note, after hosting close to 50 Bridal and Fashion events here in the valley, I think putting Hillary in a Wedding Cake Dress was a mistake.
By the way...what is Hillary's accent this week?
You know what makes me sick? When assholes like that anon post blatant lies that just misinform everyone. I'm a McCain man myself and would never vote for Edwards. And that's because he's too damned liberal. But let's quit telling lies, people! What's next, he's queer?
An Edwards’ presidency would be devastating to the economy, our Constitution, and individual entrepreneurial spirit. I am amazed that anyone in their right mind buys his collectivist bullshit. His heavily federalized fix on Social Security would be disastrous. The Government cannot and will never be able to manage money efficiently! And healthcare...an Edwards America mandates that you must be insured (individual rights minus one hundred). Johnny boy envisions a Nanny State where the government coddles you from womb to grave. No thanks, I’d rather continue to manage my own money, health, and other day to day activities.
By the way...what is Hillary's accent this week?
Russian.
Good to hear from you, Ken!
C.J. Nicholson,
I wish I could state the liberal position as well as you state the conservative side.
Among us Dems, I think Edwards is the only top dog who could get elected. Rs love to hate Hillary. If she's the nominee, that alone will unite Rs. And I hate to say this, but I think there are still plenty of bigoted people (on both sides) who could never abide Barack. That leaves Edwards. He always struck me as a phony. But I started giving him a fresh look. I think I misjudged him. For someone with my own idelogical leanings, his message is music.
I have always liked Edwards' populist message. I remember you had called him a phony at one time Bernie. I was leaning toward Obama, and sorry, I know this post is about the dems, but I really like Ron Paul. He makes A LOT of sense.
I remember you had called him a phony at one time Bernie. I was leaning toward Obama, and sorry, I know this post is about the dems, but I really like Ron Paul. He makes A LOT of sense.
He still bothers me, but not as much. I think I may have misjudged him. When I listen to what he's actually saying, as opposed to how he says it, I like the message.
You like Ron Paul?? Want to make a pitch for him? Write an essay and I'll post it. I think he'll stay in this race after the primary. His supporters are very devoted, I've noticed. I've got some very serious problems with the guy, but would be happy to post an endorsement from one of his supporters.
Bernie,
Well, more libertarian than conservative actually. I may have been considered a conservative during the Goldwater era. For example I’m probably farther to the Left than Edwards concerning LGBT rights, who only champions ‘equal rights.’ Why can’t a couple of any sort define their relationship in any manner of their choosing? It is neither my place nor the State’s to decide this. I also happen to stand with him on a woman’s right to choose. I do however have an overwhelming fear of his zeal for enlightenment legislation and a New-New Deal style campaign platform, which I previously expressed.
I may vote for Ron Paul too.
What are your problems with Ron Paul? Please don’t say the whole neo-Nazi Stormfront thing? So many false accusations have been thrown around. It has been amazing how the media latched on and tried to destroy his character, which by all long standing accounts is upstanding. And I am only bringing this up because you linked this on your blog.
I stand fairly close to the Ron Paul platform. I was fair to the other candidates and resisted making too firm a judgment within the past few months, but I’ve really done my homework as of late. Most of my reservations about the candidates have revealed themselves as true. They don’t really support small government and effective tax reforms, tend to side heavily with an ultra religious right, and would ignore that pesky Bill of Rights in a minute. But what can we expect out of the Republican Party these days? Not much more than we can expect from the Democratic Party. I’m thrilled to have Paul as a (semi)leading candidate. His ideas are being heard and give hope to a new level of political discourse. That being said, my often pessimistic attitude leads me to feel his campaign for President will certainly suffer the same Goldwateresque fate.
sadly,i lost my idealism with the death of MLK and RFK. since moving to the center was only thrilled by the 92 election of clinton. his misadventures were a disapointment but you cant take away his skill at moving our country ahead when it comes to economics. for that reason i am convinced a hillary win will ensure bills return to the helm no matter what.we had 8 years of a republican administation,with diplomacy lacking, now its time to change.
CJ, The same offer I made to Dottie applies to you, too. I don't like his erstwhile ties to the white supremacists, but would like to hear from some of his supporters.
Man walks into a bar and yells, "All lawyers are assholes!"
A guy yells back in an angry voice, "Hey! I resent that!"
The first guy asks, "Why? Are you a lawyer?"
The second guy responds, "No. I'm an asshole."
I believe we would be better off with fewer lawyers in government.
C.J. Nicholson said...
What are your problems with Ron Paul?
To me the problem is that he is an isolationist. I believe we live in a world where that is no longer possible. Paul's position on foreign affairs and the potential implications were illustrated last night in an interview on MSNBC. The discussion was about the assassination in Pakistan. A question was put to Paul asking if he were President what would he do to secure nukes in Pakistan if it looked like the government was going to collapse. Paul made several attempts to deflect the question by responding about potential loose nukes in the former Soviet Union. However, the interviewer was persistent and finally got Paul to answer the question as asked. His reply was that the US did not need to get involved in another civil war (citing Afghanistan and Iraq). Paul followed that up by saying we were able to deter the Soviet Union for 40 years implying we could do the same if a hostile government came to power in Pakistan. I don't think that analogy is valid and I believe it is dangerous for a candidate for President to assume that it is. The leaders of the former Soviet Union never wanted something bad enough that they were willing to trade Moscow for Washington to get it. If an al-Qaida/Taliban type government came to power in Pakistan I don't think we could bank on MAD to be a sufficient deterrent. Nor do I think we could trust them keep the nukes secure. The nightmare scenario is that an al-Qaida/Taliban government comes to power and then makes a nuclear device available to some terrorist group to smuggle into Tel Aviv or New York for blackmail or denotation. The fact that Paul was willing to so easily discount this possibility IMO is enough to remove him from consideration as a serious candidate.
Ron Paul believes foreign policy is how Texas deals with Louisiana.
He also promises elimination of the federal income tax - to be replaced with nothing. He will accomplish this with a 30% across-the-board reduction in all federal program expenditures.
Ron Paul is also a John Birch, Council on Foreign Relations conspiracy theorist who believes in black helicopters, but not God.
Ron Paul's popularity is marginal, but still surprising, given the strong medicine he advocates. I get the feeling he's more of a creation of left-leaning media who love that he annoys the other GOP candidates. A closer inspection of his wackiness (e.g. dean browning's efficient dissection of Paul's foreign policy naivete') will alienate most voters.
I have always wondered what small government means or back to the Constitution means. Who gets to define small. How about no federal food inspections or no FBI, go down the list. The Constitution is a living document. Do we go back to the original 10? which amendments get the boot? Who decides.
All of this little government talk is great. I am an older working taxpayer, been working since age 16 and its been a lot of years. I hate taxes with the best of them and have seen waste up close BUT what is the WORKABLE solution. Not silly hypotheticals, specific changes that a majority of Americans will agree with too fundamentally change governemnt.
As an example I remember an interview then Congressman Toomey had with Chris Matthews on HARDBALL, Toomey was running for Senate and pitching his abortion should be illegal stance. Matthews asked him if its a crime who is the criminal, Toomey sputtered but Matthews said if it's a crime and murder the pregnant woman is the criminal, Toomey refused to take the bait and sounded like another PA idiot on national TV.
So my point is you may hate governemnt programs and Dem's but what exactly would you do and how would you do it?
Also Ron Paul should try is ideas out on a state like Montana before he tries it in the big leagues. The guy is living in 1885.
To the first few posters. I didn't know suing for the litle guy was a crime. I guess being a con artist and fraud whom supports the coporation over the working class like Hillary Clinton is better.
Hillary the fraud who can still not decide what side to stand on the Neo_Cons with Joe Loserman, and W or the majority of Americans who want out of Iraq.
Clinton Gore watch over the craping upon the Working Class. When Newt's House passed NAFTA I'll never forget Gore live on Larry King. "The American People have won Larry!"
Yeah a generation whos only employment options are Retail and Food Service (Since its hard to retail that to Asia).
A era where Toyota is now making more cars in America than GM.
A time when Morgages are in ruins.
Deregulation of the Media and utliities.
Yeah the little guy really won with Clinton Gore.
And Hillary was the biggest cheerleadr of it all.
The reason the far right only talks about her. They want her to get a nmination. The couuld beat her in the general with even more ammo and talking points than they could for John (I can't get us out of Iraq but I can get the overrated Pats on every network.)
Hillary is as much a friend to labor in America as a pair of starving cats are buddies with mice!!!!
I was raised in a union house. I watched my old man a then E-board member of his local pushing his local and international to oppose NAFTA even if it didnt directly effect their trade.
But then again it wasn't Gore or Bush who inspired me to become involved and in 2000 vote for the first time ever.
Not buying the Corporations bull shit made my mind up there.
And anyone who blames Nader for 2000. I ask this, how can your head fit that far up your ass?
I mean with Bush clearly staling the election being the real fact. The governors name was not Nader. And the florida official who decided it was legal oh that was Kathrine Harris who also doubled as a head of the W for President camaping in the Sunshine state.
Let alone the blacks who were unfairly disallowed to vote for sharing names with convicts.
Or guys alike Alberto Gonzalaz and John (Keebler Elves live in my stach) Bolton. Possing as "regular guys" protesting the vote count.
I say how dare cowards not stand up to frauds.
What the Democrats need is someone with corouage to challenge the rich.
No matter if its in a law suit or in the oval office.
These corporate ass kissers gotta go. They led us to a unconstitional war. And backed war crimes that are more usuall for Fidel Castro or Stalin.
Lest we forget Enron and Worldcom (among the most famous). Enron who donated to both W Bush AND Al Gore in 2000!!!
Don't let these ass clowns in the media fool you. TV espically is dominated by Libertarians. And many Libertarians would probaly legalize canablism if it would cause stocks to go up for the napkin makers.
Is that what you really want?
None of these examples are good for the American people. Yet that one percent of the population are getting their ways with laws being passed for the rich. Regulations droping like pigeon crap. And invasions made for the oil industry.
Its time this 1% of America (Not to be confused with the other 1% who are the outlaw bikers.) take a back seat to the other 75% the working slobs.
As a young American struggling to survive. And looking at a job market that is weaker than a motor from a LeCar. All I can say is we need populist like thers no tomorrow. My Ideal ticket would be Edwards/Kucinich.
Since clearly VPs don't effect votes. Shit Dennis could pepper his load on a old buddys face and who could say anything. Weve seen it before.
Hell Dennis spell Potato.
And as for Obama hes another corporate puppet why do you think Oprah likes him. Look at those Phone books she pimps in the magazine section. Shes all about her corporate masters.
If Americans really wanted to vote for a good Black candidate they missed it four years ao with Cathrine Mously Braun. Who oh yeah was a female and ambassador as well. While under Clinton yes. BUT well she would have done better than Kerry.
What a bumbeling and mumbbleing bafoon he turned out to be. That ticket should have been switched around. BUT voters let big money pick him. When Dean led the poles one Fox News talkinghead actually called Kerry "The only Democrat with a reasonable platform".
See what they got 4 years ago when they got the chump they want. Why give them Hillary next. Why not toss in the towel if thats the plan.
Our democratic election process needs Ron Paul. We need his brave and well-informed voice telling the truth when no other candidate dares to-- too risky. Can he get the GOP nomination? Geez. I hope so (Rudy Ghouliani?! Now THAT'S scare-y). But what's more important is that the other candidates (Dems and Rs) are going to be forced into embracing many of Ron Paul's "crazy" (i.e., common sense, True Conservative) positions, now that they're all looking longingly at how much support Paul's ideas have out there-- witness the record-setting internet money-raising Paul has been cha-ching-ing lately, and, Paul's consistent "Winner" status in post-GOP-debate call-in polls.
Also, what's wrong with Ron Paul's analogy about the U.S. staring down the Russians and their 80 bazillion nuclear warheads for 50 years and ultimately winning the cold war without having had to fire a shot, as explanation for the U.S. not really having to worry (and manufacture political fear) about Iran or Pakistan or North Korea or anybody else for that matter? After our Western Radical and irrational reaction to 9-11, namely invading Iraq, do you really believe a Taliban/Al Qaeda-overrun Pakistan (and there's a hypothetical for ya) would try launching a wobbly and leaking pre-owned Soviet-model Pakistani nuclear warhead (if they could find the secret button, that is) at the U.S. or Israel? Come on. Forget "Mutually" Assured Destruction (MAD). Radical Islamists aren't THAT stoopid. They know they'd pay 1,000,000,000,000,000,000-fold for any nucular first-strike because the U.S. is cRaZy like that.
Ron Paul is a 10-term congressman who knows where (and why) things are broken and how to fix them. If the election were held tomorrow, I'd vote for him. Watch the 80+ videos on Ron Paul at YouTube like I did recently and then tell us what you think of Ron Paul. Listen to what he's saying on a variety of important issues. He's not crazy. He's Right. But in a good way. For a change.
Edwards/Kucinich NOW "and" if Americans really wanted to vote for a good Black candidate they missed it four years ago with Cathrine Mously Braun (wrong name for corrupt political loser)!
Please stop whatever you are smoking! No wonder you are an anon with your views. Please get a grip.
larry@kisslinger.com
b. you are no Goldwater, The big difference is not many Russians put on bombs and blew themselves up for Lennin. Having grown up during thre scary cold war days the MAD (Mutually Assurred Destruction) principle worked with a sane counterforce. Study Russian history, we may hate Communism but their was a logic to their fear of the West.
We don't have that today. In those days you were an ally of US or USSR and both countries worked to keep problems from escalating to all out war. Nukes in the hands of Wacko States with no overarching sanity, look out. The danger of Religious wackos promises paradise to hero's. Unfortunately, we have that here too.
Paul makes life sound simple and we all want that, I just question wheter what we want is what we have. Again a great Pres for 1885.
"The big difference is not many Russians put on bombs and blew themselves up for Lennin."
Yep. This is true. And these suicide bombers must be really really really mad at the U.S. to be willing (heck, they're shoving past one another in line) to blow themselves up in order to take out as many of us as they can. And, of course, if we're in their city, well, this is a whole lot easier to do. Lemme ask you ... do you, um, think they hate us because they, um, "hate our freedom." Or are you open to the concept, as Ron Paul proposes, that what we're seeing here in terrorist events like 9-11 and solo suicide bombers and the hostage-taking at our embassy in Iran in the late 1970s is what the CIA calls "blow-back," i.e., reactions to things the United States has been doing (like occupying Saudi Arabia) that (for whatever reason) piss off these albeit seemingly um unstable middle easterners? Maybe Reagan was right when he cut and ran in Lebanon; we just didn't call it cutting and running back then. We called it protecting our troops from nut cases who don't fight fair. Is this Isolationism? Maybe it's not such a bad idea leaving them and their oil alone for a while. Let 'em cool off. I betcha in a few years (okay maybe like 80 years) they'll miss us and wanna be friends and trading partners-- like how the United States Constitution outlines we behave around the world. Whad'ya think?
I think you are either 12 or would be happier in 1885 along with Ron Paul.
Sorry, BO. I won't use your blog to debate Ron Paulism.
"I think you are either 12 or would be happier in 1885 along with Ron Paul."
I graciously accept your forfeit. And I'll overlook your ad hominum. BTW, I'm a youthful 54. I like John Edwards too.
If Edwards or Obama win the nomination, i'm voting for McCain, or whatever other wing-nut the GOP gives us. Edwards was a crummy senator, with no achievements (save his sponsorship of the Iraq War), who was an even crummier 2004 candidate (see his shrinking debate performance with Cheney and his ability to deliver his home state to Bush). Obama is a total joke, who has never taken a hard position in his life (see his over 100 "present votes" on guns and abortion in Illinois), and has been a hypocrite in the Senate (talking up his opposition to the Iraq War while continuously voting to fund it). While Clinton has her flaws, we know them, and none of them make her incapable of running the country.
Thanks, Hillary
After watching the movie "Sicko" I've decided to immigrate to Canada. But, before I go I plan to vote for Dennis Kucinich. If he's not on the ballot when the primaries reach Pennsylvania, I'm voting for John Edwards. I agree with Bernie. I misjudged Edwards. I think he's the best choice for myself and all the other middle class slobs that do all the work and fight all the wars.
Post a Comment