OepnpOenOpne Open Thread
by Chris Bowers, Wed Nov 29, 2006 at 09:09:19 AM EST
by Chris Bowers, Wed Nov 29, 2006 at 09:09:19 AM EST
That is on my mind. He has the character and chrisma to carry all the way to the White House.
The more I read about him, the more I am sure.
Edwards Q & A re: Iran's nuclear ambitions and the current situation in Iraq
and his work with Unions:
and then there is Darfur, and minimum wages.
Edwards-Obama: A Match Made in Heaven
I don't mean to play devil's advocate, but I am honestly confused. Could somebody please explain the appeal of these two to me? Edwards was a one-term senator. Obama is still in his very first term in the Senate. I realize that they are both charismatic and good-looking and enjoy promoting their causes and such, but we're talking about the presidency, not prom king, not a good samartian award, etc. Edwards supported the war and, while I know that he recanted this position, the Republicans would only take too much delight in branding him a flip-flopper (and we know how much they enjoy that) and Obama seems like pure Beltway to me. Too much posturing. Shouldn't experience and the wisdom gained thereby be a factor? I think it would be fine to have either Edwards or Obama as either president or VP, but the other on the ticket should be somebody with more experience--like, for example, Kennedy/Johnson. I would be much happier about supporting these two together if they were a bit older and wiser, and proved themselves as political assets. As it is, I personally would love to see a Gore-Sebelius ticket, improbable though it may be.
How the Republicans frame a subject should not be a worry. John Edwards may have changed his position on Iraq, but that was a good thing not a bad, and I don't think that is an issue.
The appeal is all the work for the small and working class that Edwards does. Like giving all the proceeds from his book to Habitat and another charity. His work with minimum wage, and college for students who want it.
The work with unions, and promoting universal health care, fighting poverty:
His work with Darfur, and much more.
Have you really searched out information about him?
You may want to visit:
Every time we put someone up with "wisdom and experience" they get beat. See Kerry, Gore, Mondale, McGovern, etc... We put folks like that up and they get attacked for being too Washington. We put up people with little relevent experience like Clinton and Carter and they win.
We also put up Edwards in 2004, though, and he got beat too.
I just kind of can't help but wonder. I've seen a lot of things to be impressed with about Edwards, like his persuasive and expressive 2004 democratic national convention speech. I've also seen a lot of things to make me wonder if he maybe needs a little more experience in some areas before he can be a serious candidate, like his somewhat embarrassing performance in the 2004 vice presidential debate.
But aside from any of these things, I do have to wonder-- the 2004 Democratic campaign was like a case study in how to run an ineffectual political campaign, and John Edwards was at the least involved in that. Does the man actually know how to campaign for political office?
This has been addressed before, but the number 2 doesn't call the shots. He doesn't pick the message, he doesn't pick the places, he provides support and is supposed to reinforce the number 1.
An Edwards-Kerry campaign would have been very different than the Kerry-Edwards campaign. The themes, the vision, everything.
for Chenney and or a republican. So I don't know where you get that idea. It is brandished about by some, but have you got any polls to show it.
Kerry was in charge during the 2004 campaign, Edwards had maintained a good campaign during the cycle.
He has as the right motivation for a run this time and is as committed to the People of America as ever.
I think if he does run this time many will be amazed.
Could somebody please explain the appeal of these two [Edwards/Obama] to me?
Edwards was a one-term senator.
That's a bonus to the basic constitutional requirement of a native-born 35-year-old.
Historically voters have liked generals and governors best. Such a qualification is rather dubious in my opinion. A smiling, backslapping idiot who doesn't use big words and you got yourself a candidate.
Edwards has considerable handicaps in that regard but it appears he may be able to overcome them.
Hey, man, Edwards is an honest-to-good liberal who doesn't even pay lip service to the "suffering middle class" DLC catechism. That's the appeal here. Good to have an actual Democrat running.
Flip flopper? You like "stay the course" better? It's a spurious charge that should frighten only little children afraid of boogeymans. You want a bullheaded dunce beyond the reach of reason? You got one now.
As for Obama, it's enough that he isn't Cheney.
And Obama? He is more or less all style and practically no substance. Could there be anybody more Washington D.C.?
(Yes, of course there could be, but hyperbole aside, Obama is smart and affable, but he does not have the feel of an outsider. Washington is stale, and we need somebody from the world beyond the Beltway.)
The Utah/DC situation is getting interesting. I just read that the Utah legislature is proposing yet another 4-district plan to be debated. It seems to be the sanest one yet, giving Jim Matheson the state's sole urban, Democratic district which unites Park City (Robert Redford-land) with Salt Lake City. It keeps Rob Bishop and Chris Cannon in rural, safe GOP seats, and creates a new 4th in the western part of the state that is rural but has a big population base in Salt Lake County.
So I'm confused. Is the legislature going to go with this plan (dubbed Plan L) or will they continue debating all the plans?
Why do all the insider dems get so excited about Obama ? He condesending to black people, wishy washy on Iraq and w/o creds or experience w/ respect to anything progressive. The best AA in congress is Sheila Jackson Lee. She is smart, experienced, tough and does not suffer fools gladly (voted second meanest member by House staffers). Gore for Pres/ Lee for Vice and Jimmy Carter for Secretary of State.
<object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/Z94W-xOUnqk"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/Z94W-xOUnqk" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>
What Should We Do With the Rubber Stamp?
Next week marks the end of the 109th Congress and our last 30 Something hour of the year. Night after night, we've been using our giant Rubber Stamp to illustrate the Republican Congress rubber-stamping the Administration's policies, but starting in January, thanks to Americans across the country, we will no longer have a need for it. How should we celebrate this momentous occasion? What should we do with the Rubber Stamp?
I mean, it sounds nice in theory, but to actually do it must not be very popular, since poverty is still with us and actually getting worse. It would require some degree of sacrifice by everyone.
Seriously, the focus soon will change from Iraq to the economy (except for how Iraq affects our economy). The housing bubble will deflate like a woopee cushion and lead us into Recession in Q1.
...and tying further increases it to inflation. Edwards was fighting hard to get that done at the state level, and ballot measures to do that passed on Nov. 7 in all six states where they were introduced. That's an important first step.