John Edwards did not raise his hand.  At least as I saw it.

He later said that "We have more tools available than bombs."

I've read that Soros book.  He is right.  The GWOT is a false metaphor.  Terror is a tactic, not an entity against which one can war.

I don't know if Edwards agrees with Soros on this, but I did not see him raise his hand yesterday.

You also are right.  My initial pull toward Edwards came from economic populism.  Unions, working class issues.

Good post, Matt.

Yes he did, all candidates but kuccinich and Gravel raised their hands.

Do you ever read Shai Sachs's Planting Liberally? I think one of his diaries was promoted here, perhaps by you, and some (much?) of his thinking dovetails with this discussion. Though he's more concerned specifically, I think, with leftie entrepreneurialism, he's also all about trying to expand into these non-political political networks.

I repeatedly read that Edwards was the single candidate who didn't raise his hand on that one, though I didn't see it. I'm sure you'll get a less second-hand answer than that.

And get some rest, man. You're a valuable resource: take care of yourself. (I've actually been thinking about some of your arguments, and some of the times I've disagreed with you, and I'll spare you my pop blog psychology and just say it's gotta be tough, being the canary in the coalmine ...)

re: P.S. I don't know, I ran in from the kitchen when I heard him ask it, but I didn't get there in time :(

Good post.

...

more than a sixth of my life.  Wow.

I'm graduating college in 24 days, so I've had several of these moments myself. Sometimes it feels like the last 4 years of my life account for 90% of my experiences, which means that 90% of my life was experienced in this information stream.

I got to college; I started working at the helpdesk; hours in front of a computer with only intermittent phone-answering responsibilities led to reading Wired and BBC news; this led to Salon; Salon led to DailyKos; DailyKos led to MyDD.

So I was in the MyDD info stream before I ever left the e-school, and studied political theory, psychology, feminist theory, linguistics, black history/politics, or post-structural theory.

Now I don't even remember what thinking was like before post-structural theory or MyDD, and I doubt I ever will.

Good riddance.

Obama said, "I am not planning to nuke anyone."

It is not in the planning stages but that doesn't mean it is not on the table.

IT IS IMPOSSIBLE for a democratic andidate to win the Presidency, IF THEY'RE WEAK ON TERRORISM.  PERIOD.

Obama said "I'm not planning to nuke anybody RIGHT NOW, Mike, I promise."

I think the "right now" is pretty important. To me, I read that as "all options are on the table." I think you'd better revisit this one, Matt. I don't think Obama has removed any options at all.

Edwards, Kucinich, and Gravel DID NOT raise their hands (and Obama DID NOT look around before he did raise his hands)

Was "Do you believe there is a Global War on Terror?" (looking for transcript)

This question definitely needed a follow up. I am quite sure Brian Williams knew that this term is quite controversial, and I think he did a disservice to all involved (on this question and others) by the poor if not purposefully disingenuous phrasing.

Why didn't he ask if the candidates believe the term GWOT was appropriate to describe the United States current policy?

I think what Obama, and everyone really, means is that no REASONABLE options are off the table.  Does anybody honestly believe that nuclear strikes or invasion of Iran are something any of these candidates are considering?  The reality is that these people are referring to REASONABLE options.  Just because the person in the White House now has consistently lied, cheated, and stolen doesn't mean our candidates are considering unreasonable options.  Our candidates are reasonable and logical in their thoughts and ideas, one would think our supporters wouldn't be so illogical and unreasonable to suggest that their words should be taken with absolute meaning, there is some room for reasonable and logical people to interpret that "All options are on the table" to mean all reasonable options.

I think it's a mistake to think that MyDD and DailyKos represent the populist movement.  Being generous, they are read by less than 5% of the population and only a few thousand at most actually contribute.  Of those contributors, only about 15 people are "front pagers".  Do you really think the views of these 15 people represent the populous?  

And I don't think "all options are on the table" is code for nuclear war.  It simply means that they will use whatever is necessary and appropriate for the situation.  No president, Democratic or Republican, is going to launch a nuclear bomb except in the most extraordinary of circumstances.  The more important issue is finding the candidate that is most likely to resolve the conflict without resorting to force.

I don't see organized labor and blogging as being natural allies within the Democratic coalition.

Blogging is fundamentally about letting everyone have their say.

Organized labor is about the group electing leaders who create a position and then manufacture consensus.

Bloggers and organized labor are probably on the same side on issues--as much as anyone can make generalizations about bloggers--but stylistically bloggers and unions are pretty different.

they can't do political (maybe talking points).

A Democratic candidate who is perceived as NOT TOUGH ON TERROR/SECURITY is UNELECTABLE.  

Since so much of the leftie blog chatter (and I use the term affectionately) has focused on dismantling the manufactured aura of inevitability around Hillary, I think it's interesting to read lines like this:

The people on that stage were not leaders, and except for Gravel (who isn't a credible candidate) they had very little understanding of the deep betrayal felt by the public in the last seven years.

Gravel has more experience than anyone else who was standing on that stage, especially in the area of ending an unpopular and foolish war. Yeah, he's 76 (almost 77), but is that the only reason he "isn't a credible candidate?"

Don't misunderstand me: I agree with you. I just think it's important that we examine why someone like Kucinich or Gravel isn't credible. Because on the issues, I sure agree with them a lot more than anyone else on that stage.

My point, basically, is this: if we're going to complain about the media creating an aura of inevitability around Sen. Clinton, is it fair for us to turn around and create an aura of inelectability around Kucinich and Gravel?

I really don't know the answer to this, I just thought I'd throw it out there.

we all know what it means in the popular media usage.

I think it was brave thing for Edwards to do and fits in with his answer earlier about trying to get at the root causes of terrorism like poverty, poor health, education that need to be addressed internationally.

I was hoping Williams would ask him why, but didnt happen.

You missed the best part of the debate last night, Matt: all those fresh-faced kids playing their hearts out in the college marching band. Their future is what makes our work worthwhile.

Good post. I like "Open Left" as a moniker. In your subsequent post on confidence you make a quite allusion to 2009, and what that might mean. That's where the payoff is: bringing these ideas back into to real realm of public service. It's possibly the only way to undo the framing and appointee landmines and prevent a Carter/Regan redux in 2012.

I also really appreciate this sentiment:

The people on that stage were not leaders, and except for Gravel (who isn't a credible candidate) they had very little understanding of the deep betrayal felt by the public in the last seven years.  And that means, as usual, that it's up to us to organize around this ignorance on the part of our elites.

My biggest fear is that one of ours will grind out a depressing 50.5% victory and nothing will change because they "barely won" with the conventional methods, and can't afford to make any moves.

These non-political blogs are political, these non-political networks are political.  And they should start learning about politics and approaching it with respect.

This respect thing is a two-way street. There is some level of resentment on the techie/creative side that the political people think and act like they invented the web. The people who built many of the tools and invented the forms and mediums have kind of been shunted aside by this vast explosion of blogging into a mass medium. However, these people and their expertise and influence are still potentially very valuable, and SXSW and other places where the two groups coincide are an excellent opportunity to build bridges, one that I feel like the political wing has wasted terribly so far. Part of it is indeed political apathy or obliviousness from the techie side, but when most of the political web contingent flies in, does their talk, and then quickly heads off for the next stop, or has mostly private parties that don't mix with the web contingent, and when others cough*Kos*cough are more interested in hawking their book than in learning from all these brilliant people they have the privilege of speaking to, the state of affairs you lament is not surprising. The results-oriented political ethic when it comes to the web is a big turnoff for many creatives and techies, especially when we meet on neutral ground in places where the hard-sell is not expected or wanted.

Things like SXSW are not about hawking your candidate(the Warner people were especially egregious about this in 2006) or your site, or your issues, they're about a meeting of the minds, and a rare opportunity to learn, build relationships, and hatch projects with the best in the field, on neutral ground. Until some of the political people start staying around and really engaging with the tech/creative people as peers and potential allies, I don't see the situation changing much. As someone with a foot in both worlds, I really wish it would happen, but I've been disappointed with both sides so far. I dunno, I didn't make SXSW this year, so maybe it has improved a bit, but the 2 years before that were pretty lousy and disappointing in this regard.