• on a comment on The Tie Has Been Broken over 6 years ago

    I sincerely hope you are being sarcastic here.

    If not, you should find yourself another place to hang out. (Maybe the Klan has a blog now?)

  • on a comment on The Tie Has Been Broken over 6 years ago

    Wrong.

    In 2004, Bush gained in all Southern States, but his gain in NC was the smallest.

    So, relatively speaking, Edwards did help.

    Remember, it's not only about winning swing states, it's also making the Republicans spend money in states that are supposed to be theirs. And a Southerner (or Westerner) on the ticket still seems to be a smart way to accomplish this.

  • The blunder lies in talking about 'obliterating Iran'. (Both the choice of topic and the choice of rhetoric on the eve of an important primary are despicable)

    International diplomatic relations are much more sensitive and complicated than domestic policy discourse exactly because of the different parties, perspectives and perils involved.

  • Lori,

    riddle me this:

    Elizabeth Edwards' focus in this campaign has always been on health care.

    She clearly prefers Hillary's UHC plan (as do I, by the way)

    Still, she is NOT ENDORSING HRC.

    Doesn't that mean she must have some major reservations concerning other aspects of Hillary?

    I mean, were you listening? She said she'd even applaud McCain if he came up with a reasonable UHC plan.

    Would you call that "short of an endorsement", too?

  • on a comment on PA, Obama, Casey, and buses over 6 years ago

    "God Damn America!" is a 'violation of the law' or 'bigoted hate speech'?

    Are you really that delusional about the role the US has been playing in the last 60 years? About the extra-ordinary grief US government policies have caused at home and around the world? About the millions of people who have every right to be angry at the US government?

    The idea of America, equality, liberty, and justice for all, is beloved around the world.

    Nuking mid-sized cities to keep the Soviets off of Japan, napalm-bombing Vietnamese children, lynching black Americans about to vote, ....destroying Iraq, neglecting New Orleans: Not so.

    America is a free country because it is NOT ILLEGAL to criticize its history or present.

  • on a comment on More Voices for Obama over 6 years ago

    what's your beef with Obama?

    Don't get me wrong, I'm very critical of him, but I can't see for the life of me where Hillary actually bests him. To me, another lesser-of-two-evils election, but Obama clearly being the lesser evil.

    I assume you're a working-to-middle-class unionized white person from the liberal wing of the party, what makes you prefer Clinton? (Honestly interested.)

  • on a comment on More Voices for Obama over 6 years ago

    Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the earth. (And that's coming from an agnostic.)

    As much as we try to love the sinner, however, we should never forget to hate the sin (hate, greed, lie, war)

  • Exactly my thoughts.

    So what if Obama quotes a speech that Spike Lee wrote for his Malcolm, who happens to be the second most important historical figure for African-Americans. It's not like AA's have NOT been hoodwinked & bamboozled for the last 400 years.

    Pandering a bit? You bet.

    At least, he's not trying to sound like an old Yankee when campaigning in Maine or Vermont. Wins them anyway.

  • comment on a post Economic Crisis terminology for the rest of us over 6 years ago

    Seriously, this double-speak will only hold for so long. This will go down in history as the first deep economic crisis the public can actually watch unfold.

    And while Americans are watching real estate, the dollar and their income go down and costs for everything they actually buy go up, more and more neighbors have to re-finance, change their kids' college plans, sell one of the cars, look for a new home, take an additional job - and this is only true for the financially somewhat stable parts of society.

    There was a Democratic candidate who had centered his campaign around middle-class squeeze and modern-day poverty in the United States. But, to quote political analyst Thomas F. Schaller from his latest (?) book, 'Whistling Past Dixie':

    "In presidential elections especially, the party somehow seems to self-destruct, picking bad candidates who run poor campaigns based on myopic advice from over-paid consultants."

    John Edwards was the one candidate who had the issues right from the beginning. He and his campaign understood that it is time for a new New Deal, that government has - again - to be taken from the capitalists and given to the American people. It has happened before: After the Guilded Age, and after the height of the Great Depression.

    I don't know how serious Clinton and Obama are taking the threat of an economic breakdown, but they sure don't sound as alarmed as they should.
    McCain has already said he doesn't know much about the economy.

    Let's just hope the eventual president is a fast learner.

  • on a comment on Obama's Naive over 6 years ago

    What makes you think that?

    He managed to be elected Governor of MA, so it seems like he knows how to beat Democrats in a non-conservative environment. Like Bill Maher said 10 days ago, he's like a younger Reagan: Tall, good-looking, he panders relentlessly to everybody, and he makes shit up as he goes.

    Right now, I'm afraid Democrats have already squandered their chances by ignoring Edwards.

    Right now, I'm afraid the next POTUS will be Mitt Romney.

    American politics is broken. Or is it just the Democratic party? Or does this mean the same anyway, for there is no, and has never been in the last 30 years, a working Republican party?

    (BTW: My old English teacher, Mrs Wertheimer, told me that, in February 2007, a NYT political editor, a Mr (Steve?) Cohen, had predicted Romney v Clinton - and a Romney win. Naturally, I didn't believe her. Ha Ha.;-()

  • Very informative, demo37, thank you.

    Do you think the immigration issue could tip the Republicans toward Romney - despite his religion? Wouldn't that possibly trigger a third-party candidacy by the religious right?

    "That is the one scenario in which I would actually say that Clinton or Obama would be favored to win."

    Please keep telling that to the enthusiastic followers of both remaining candidates. Have they gone through a general election before? In my mind, the Dems fumbled their chance to win big in November - they ignored Edwards.

    They will pay dearly for it, I'm afraid. Whether it's a moderate Dem in the White House (confronted with a split Congress), or a moderade Republican - big, bold change is off the table. And this will hurt both the idealists who want change because of their convictions, and the working and middle classes who NEED a government that works for them.

  • on a comment on Post Debate Thread over 6 years ago

    I agree.

    I'm a huge Edwards supporter BECAUSE both other candidates are seriously flawed. Now that John has suspended his candidacy, the question has boiled down to 'The Lesser Of Two Evils'.

    Two corporate Democrats. One plays dirty, the other seems to be overly naive. One is right on UHC, the other was right on Iraq.

    Also, I am seriously worried about the General Election now, because both McCain and Romney could very well win this against either of the two Democrats. (Let's remember '76, when a very weak Gerald Ford almost beat Carter, and this after the greatest political scandal of American history. America is a progressive country, but with a conservative electorate.)

  • Sorry Nancy, but you got that wrong.

    Women are 52% of the population and only 16% of the Senate. This means they are under-represented by a factor of 3 (i.e. for a gender-proportional representation, it should be three times as many female Senators)

    Blacks are 13.6% of the population, but only 1% of the Senate. This means they are under-represented by a factor of 13-14.

    You can also put it like this:

    For ca. 160.000.000 women, there are 16 female Senators (10.000.000 women per Senator)

    For 40.000.000 African Americans, there's one AA Senator (40.000.000 AA per Senator)

    Clearly, blacks are more under-represented.

    As an Edwards supporter, I have to remind everybody that the President is supposed to represent all Americans, as well as a Senator has to represent all the people in his/her state.

    (There really are no 'Women Senators' or 'AA Senators', or 'White Senators', for that matter - there is only the Senator from Illinois, the Senator of NY - and the former Senator of NC)

    It is not about a candidates' gender or ethnicity, it is about his/her ideas to build a better America, including his/her ideas to battle sexism/racism. I am strictly opposed to the idea that women are better fit to represent women, or blacks to represent blacks.

    E pluribus unum, no?

  • I am confident there will be Universal Health Care in the US of A under president John Edwards.

    Obama has already said there will be no UHC if he becomes president.

    Hillary hinted at the "end of her second term", for crying out loud!

    What's more, if the Republican nominee is Romney or McCain, both HRC and BHO have a good chance of losing the General Election.

    So, this primary/ caucus season comes down to:

    Edwards and a new approach:

    Putting People First.

    (...Reminds you of something?...That's right - Clinton '92)

    or

    More of the same. (Clinton/Obama/Romney/McCain)

  • comment on a post Updated: My Momma's Card: Why I Support John Edwards over 6 years ago

    and I hope everyone in your family is alright.

    Go John Go!

Diaries

Advertise Blogads