Site Presented By
Sunday, Nov 8, 2009
I do not think I have ever been so disappointed in a publication that I once championed as being truly progressive. Why is no one writing about the lack of funding for John Edwards' campaign? Why is no one looking at what is an obvious reason for this lack of funding? Where have Clinton and Obama managed to find so much fatback for their larders? Could Edwards be underfunded because of his withering and accurate critique of the corporate choke-hold on this country? Why does the BIG MONEY go to Clinton and Obama? Could Salon be complicit in this anti-democratic, pro-capitalist effort to suffocate the life out of Edwards' campaign? Come on New Hampshire people -- follow the money and then see for whom and for what you are truly voting.
Clinton should ignore all this Obama nonsense about hope and change, sweet as the sound bite sounds. China doesn't give a damn about hope in America. Neither does India. Neither does the Middle East. The world is at a crossroads, for Christ's sake! At home, it's the economy, stupid. Internationally, it's foreign policy, stupid.
From now on, her slogan should be: It's one thing to be elected, it takes another to govern. Clinton CAN!
as Hillary Clinton angrily noted. But having the first black president would also be change.
The New York Times reported "black men in the United States face a far more dire situation than is portrayed by common employment and education statistics...and it has worsened in recent years even as an economic boom and a welfare overhaul have brought gains to black women and other groups."
The Afro-American man is the canary in the coal mine of social change.
Half of black men in their 20s were jobless in 2004. By their mid-30s, 6 in 10 black men who dropped out of school had spent time in prison. Many of these men grew up fatherless, and they never had good role models. All the negative trends are associated with poor schooling.
Having the first black president not only would be change, it would give hope to everyone.
Was when Bill Richardson, responding to a question about nuclear proliferation, loose nukes, and nuclear terrorism, said that as president he'd work harder to cooperate with the Soviet Union on these issues. Yep, that's right, the SOVIET UNION. You know, the country that hasn't even existed for over 16 years!
The best part was, that he didn't even catch his mistake and correct himself. And this from a man who's only real selling point in this whole contest is his lengthy experience, with emphasis on FOREIGN POLICY experience. Whoops! So much for that argument.
Yes, yes, I'm aware that Fred Thompson made the exact same gaffe when answering a question not long ago, and there was some bemused chatter about it in the media and blogosphere to the effect that it shows how clueless he is. Funny that no one has mentioned Richardson's slip-up in a similar fashion.
Although I have a lot of respect for Richardson and I'm sure he'd make a great cabinet secretary, and although every candidate should be allowed the occasional verbal slip or gaffe (they are humans under enormous and persistent amounts of stress, after all) I could only shake my head in bewilderment after that comment and wonder why Richardson is still in the race? A 2% showing in Iowa convinced him of his long-term viability? Please. Was he there to bolster Clinton (they've both been running as "experience" candidates) against the inevitable tag-team onslaught of Obama and Edwards? Wouldn't he do her a bigger favor by dropping out and quickly endorsing her, and thereby throwing at least some of his support her way? Was he angling to be her running-mate if she's able to secure the nomination? If so, that comment will come back to haunt him--you can bet that Republican operatives taped that little gaffe and will use it later if he appears on a national ticket.
With all due respect, Mr. Richardson, you're a great guy and you've had a distinguished career, but I think your time in the race has passed. Drop out soon.
1. Democratic views on the War on terror make very little sense. I think all 4 candidates indicated that they were willing to attack Al Quaeda in Pakistan's borders wihtout agreement from Pakistan. Hillary Clinton even indicated that she would use nuclear weapons against a state in response to a nuclear attack on the US by terrorists based in a state. Fair enough. But, they all next described how they want to get out of Iraq as quick as possible. Now, what is the likely outcome in Iraq if we withdraw quickly. Isn't there a reasonable probability that terrorists will take over? If Pakistan with a partially pro-US governament and military is dangerous, what would an anti-US Iraq allied with Iran and Syria be like?
2. Obama and Edwards could have easily beaten Clinton in the debate. After one of her statements of how experienced and ready she is, one of them should have finally just called her on it and said that she really doesn't have any more experience than the rest of them. The simple fact is that being the wife of a governor and being the First Lady do not count for anything. So, beyond that, she is a 1+ term Senator. Not much more than Edwards who at least can add to his resume that he actually did run for Vice President. And, when Hillary started to take credit for the change that Bill Clinton made in the 90's (one example: budget balancing), Edwards or Obama could have simply replied that the biggest change under Bill Clinton was the Republican takeover of Congress and Clinton's compromising with them on things like welfare reform.
I know there is a perception that the MSM hate Hillary but the exact opposite has been true. She was annointed as a brilliant, national leader based on no actual contributions of any kind. I think the voters subconsciously know this and the results are showing.
Much of the initial coverage about Fort Hood turned out to be wrong. Is there anything wrong with that?
The accountability imposed by another country for the CIA's kidnapping and torture reveals much about our own.
Fox News' morning show plays to type, talking about whether Muslims in the Army should face "special debriefings"
219 Democrats and one Republican join in favor of the legislation, which passed by a narrow margin
The survivor and author is upset about comparisons some on the right are making to genocide
Salon headlines in your mailbox
