Letters to the Editor
-
They are running against each other
Saying how you are better than the other guy kind of makes sense no?
-
Heaven Fofend
Good Lord! A candidate distinguishing himself on actual issues from his competitors??!! Quelle horreur! What's next? Earnest discussions about problems that real people actually confront in their daily lives?
-
Seeing that Edwards
has the most complete and detailed and interesting plans with regard really important issues..
and seeing that he has generated absolutely no interest on the issues from guys like Michael...
maybe it makes sense for him to articulate some well modulated criticism....you know comparing and contrasting the stands of himself and the other candidates...
because God knows, the media has done a piss poor job of covering this race and have ignored Edwards, even though he performing well in the early primary states...except when making cheap shots about hair cuts. Even though, one can imagine how much David Gregory pays for his haircuts.
Maybe this is good thing, seeing that guys like Michael used to brag about how they brought Howard Dean down.
By the way, Edwards isn't fighting the donkey. He is one of the few candidates who actually embraces Democratic values.
-
"Democrats in Disarray"
For God's sake, Scherer, why don't you people just make a macro of the phrase and save the keystrokes? On top of that, anything Edwards can do to stop the Hillary madness is welcome by me. Him or the O-Man; I don't care. Anything but Ms. 'Lobbyists Are People Too' with her groundbreaking health care plan: "I'll reward insurers for innovation." And as much as I can't warm up to 'Mudcat,' he's right about some blue states. What a freaking disaster in the making. You can see Hillary's loss coming like Katrina was visible from the moon.
-
Whoever the Democratic candidate is...
...that's who I will be voting for... any one of our candidates is a far cry better than the other teams'. And then there are the spouses. [sigh] Again, the Democratic field far outshines the GOP's.
As for a ticket, I do tend more toward more some combination of Edwards and Dodd, at least for now. But, what about Gore? Is he even a possibility? [rhetorical question, answers not needed]
Also, I've commented before, and will do so again, I would much prefer to see Hillary Clinton nominated to SCOTUS. Everything she is criticized for by the netroots would be more appropriate there... especially her consensus-seeking and judicious temperament. And her time in the Senate might actually smooth the process. And it would be for life. No more Clintons campaigning. And... Ruth Bader Ginsburg has already said, some time ago, that she really doesn't like being the only woman on the court. And who can blame her?
-
Good politics and good policy
In the political sphere, Edwards is putting together a narrative that reads as follows: I am authentic. She (Clinton) is untrustworthy. He (Obama) is too weak. It makes a helluva lot of sense. Authenticity is the absolute coin of the realm in retail politics like in Iowa and New Hampshire.
As public policy, it is widely viewed among Democratic Party activists and groups that money in politics is not just corrupting, but corrosive of the things we need. For a richly detailed example of this, please see "Sicko". And it's not just health care -- just ask the proverbial individual on the street whether they think that government listens to them as much as it listens to Mr. Deep Pockets.
I've often wondered how long it will take, how desperate Americans have to become, how much risk-shifting onto their backs they will tolerate before they turn on the status quo. John Edwards is asking Americans to see themselves and their relationship to their country in that framework, by that angle. Just count how many times in his speeches he refers to "Washington" and "corporations" in the same sentence. Edwards is betting that 2008 is the year the dam breaks.
-
Surprise. They are running against each other.
Does this really need pointing out? Of course the candidates are going to "take a swipe" and "blast" each other. They're competing for the nomination. That means they have to say why they believe they're better than the other choices.
Why popular media feels the need to beat this dead horse is beyond me. It's as perplexing as the constant obsession with painting debate between elected representatives as "bickering" and "logjam", when it's their job to argue with each other. Voters disagree with each other so they elect representatives who disagree with each other. Thus, the representatives disagree, and they debate. This is how democratic government works. The alternatives are either (a) a happy utopia where everyone agrees that squirrels are cute and nothing else is worth discussing or (b) a fascist dictatorship where everyone is forced to agree.
When it comes to the big important questions, people genuinely disagree with each other. In a free society, elections and politics in general reflect this. It's a feature, not a bug.
-
Very Disappointing Salon
I read Salon primarily for the intelligent, independently-minded political news/analysis. This article contains none of the above.
How about, instead of bashing Edwards for "turning on his fellow Democrats" (as if Clinton and Obama spend their days merrily skipping through fields of daffodils holding each other's hands), you give us some coverage of Kunich? Or Ron Paul? Or of the critical issues at stake in our country, like say ... the campaign finance reform Edwards is championing?
Then again, maybe it's just easier to produce hack garbage like this.
-
This is just getting boring
It's pretty much settled now that we need to get out of Iraq, that Bush is a jerk, we wasted our chances in Afghanistan, and the Democrats need to pick a candidate.
AND Salon has a wine club where you can get 2 to 4 wines every month, with free shipping, that you can discontinue whenever you like.
Hmmm why do I feel so bored?
Hey I know -- why don't you start covering what's going on in northern Mexico?
I'd like to hear the Democratic candidates tell me what they're going to differently with the War on Drugs now that Mexican drug cartels are buying up heavy artillery and having it choppered into Mexico.