Letters to the Editor
-
you can't "nice" corporate America
As much as I sympathize with the scrappy street fighter (image) that Edwards has recently come to embody, as I said in a different conversation thread I couldn't help but think that Edwards, as a white male, has more of a historical opportunity to play that angry man on t.v. than Obama does.
-
Joan, did you happen to catch Bill O'Reilly throwing his chin waddles around?
Apparently 6'6" Bill O'Loofa didn't like the vantage point his FAUX News camera man was getting at an Obama rally earlier today, so he broke through a barricade and tried to manhandle Obama's chief aide. He laid his hands on the man and gave him a shove, prompting the U.S. Secret Service detail to bum's rush Mr. Falafel back behind the barricade.
Obama, the gentleman assured O'Dildo that after the primaries, he would consider going on The Factor.
When hell freezes over, I think he meant to add.
-
true
Dolores:
I think you are exactly right about Obama not being free to play the angry man--but what we hope might work in foreign policy (diplomacy) will not work with cooperate interests in America. You will have to pry power out of their clawed tenacles. What if Obama doesn't have either the will or the freedom to do so? I'm with Edwards on this. An Edwards/Obama ticket would be a great one, and Obama can walk into the presidency in 8 years. Joe Biden for Secretary of State. Bill Richardson in charge of education.
-
What comes next...
Joan;
I find myself asking "who among the three will carry enough mass in 2008 at the election to avoid the pull down from the former White House staff members left in Washington, that is, Republican members of the House and Senate?". My feeling is that Obama or Edwards will attract enough of a change desired voter to do so. Until Hillary bites the hands that are feeding her from her husband's friends and chip holders she will be pegged to the "immoral past" and will have enough drag to permit the Republican's hold on choking reform. A feeling of change now has overshadowed sex and race as a consideration; sex, especially since "old Europe" has long sinced passed us in selecting a woman leader. This is an exciting time for young and democratic voter...Hillary is aging fast.
-
How Bush made change, that's how
You make change against moneyed interests by ignoring them, just as the current president has made change by ignoring his enemies. The strategy for President Edwards is to work with his friends and push against the enemy until he can't push any further. None of this requires negotiation, just determination and clarity.
None of it requires anger, either, but I expect that "A" word to come up anyway. I don't care, personally. I prefer anger--or its polite name, determination--to the wimpy, passive "hope."
-
Nice is overrated, put their heads on pikes as a warning to the others.
Frankly I'm shocked at how 'nice' the Dem candidates are so far. I would have a cadre of minions full time digging up dirt on all the GOP candidates and I would beat them literally to suicide with it. There is nothing too small too trivial that can't be mushroomed into a warcrime and the only sane course of action is to destroy the GOP candidates. Literally, in fact. Make them drop out, make them kill themselves, send them off to jail. A complete zero tolerance scorched earth policy. The only good Republican is a dead Republican.
-
oversight of special interests
To start with, you put somebody besides the foxes in charge of the hen house.
The Bush administration has consistently done just that and looked the other way when corporations were given a pass on obeying the law.
And that's not to suggest that all corporations are bad, but sometimes they need to be reminded to work within the law.
And sometimes the law needs to be changed. Right now, we have both domestic and foreign corporations in control of some of the nation's water resources. Not a good idea, with all the predictions we've seen of increasing drought and shortages.
-
great--so now we're taking policy lessons from
George W. Bush? Anyone who thinks his prescription for success (only in reverse--for democratic ideals) is fooling themselves. I don't think any Democrats--none of the frontrunners-- have the heartlessness required to lock out any voice of the dissent. In fact, I hope they don't. What Bush created for himself was a policy vaccum and we need to find a far better paradigm for leadership to pull the country in the healthy democratic direction we all need it to go in. It isn't just about ignoring your enemy and being just like a liberal version of Bush. Bush hasn't been a leader! He's been a phony decider. I think we want a person who's going to motivate the grassroots. The independents. The populist base that once made the Democratic party strong. We're supposed to be a democracy, not an oligarchy.
Paul Krugman claims that latent racism has held the Democrats back since the civil rights era. Maybe it's time to call the Republican's bluff. Bring out their ghouls and hold up a mirror. Take photos. Put them on you-tube.
Strong, honest leadership is what this election boils down to for a lot of us. Maybe the kind of combative politics Edwards claims he can do, would be better accomplished in the Senate chambers. The president can't do much without a supporting Congress, as Bill Clinton learned.
-
Edwards is in an interesting (and difficult) position.
He's doing well enough with his message, and I agree with a lot of it. He's very short of resources, though, and has not drawn the contributions, or even the sheer deluge of small contributors that Obama has. His performance in Iowa against a very much better funded Clinton for second place points out a couple important things: He drew most of people's "second-choice" votes, as noted elsewhere, and more to the point, Clinton did not. What that means is this: Her support level is pretty well fixed in place and will not likely increase. And that ought to be a red flag for her campaign.
Edwards in fact may very well serve to help push Clinton off the stage in favor of Obama. I don't see the Obama campaign disparaging him nearly as much, for that reason (his general usefulness in that), and also, they see how underfunded he is and don't therefore see him as a real threat to their team.
On another topic, I think the Clinton campaign and backers are finding out that the polls in fact primarily rewarded her name recognition early on. Those not already in her corner have also commented here and elsewhere on the very real problem that she may not be able to overcome - many people, even in her own party, do in fact have a deep, solid, long-established, visceral dislike of her, and the reality is that's not a feeling easily changed. It's also interesting to note that in conversations I've had, some of her supporters indicate that they are supporting "a woman for President" and not in fact the particular woman seeking the office. This too is a warning sign. One backer, who really ought to have known better, said he'd have been as comfortable with Elizabeth Dole or Condoleezza Rice as Clinton, at which point I walked away, realizing that he wasn't going to be reasoned away from a position that had no basis in reason in the first place.
At the end of a campaign, when they enter the booth, people tend to vote for the candidate they like, without necessarily referring to long lists of positions, proposals, and programs. And many people just do not like Sen. Clinton very much.
It's still very early in the race, and much of what I say here is from someone on the sidelines, but one way it could play out is that Edwards weakens Clinton enough for Obama to take a strong lead after the Feb. 5th primaries.
Obama could also fade, although I don't see that as nearly as probable, given the crowds he draws. As those crowds begin to translate to numbers, we'll know for certain.
Edwards, for all his good positions, simply does not have the funds to go the distance. It would take a solid run of primary wins to draw the level of contributors he would need to become viable as a nominee, and I just don't see him getting that run the way things are shaping up.
Early guess: Obama holds a lead, although never a huge one, Edwards does OK with a string of seconds and thirds, Clinton stays in it for a long time based on her funding, and ultimately falls short.
I'd still vote for any of them, with varying degrees of enthusiasm.