Corrente

If you have "no place to go," come here!

Aw shit: Edwards out

I'm too depressed to find any links; MSNBC had it first and now CNN's picked it up.

Son of a bitch. Goddammit. And the "coverage" sounds like it's his fucking funeral, with everybody praising him to the skies, lauding his saintliness, noting that he won all the debates.

Yeah, the same media that couldn't mention his name all these months, just noticed that he was the best we had. "Just couldn't get traction" seems to be the theme. Crowded out by the superstars (who had ten times his money, they don't mention, because he didn't take from lobbyists and PACs and all that.)

Goddammit. Why oh why couldn't he have held on through Tuesday? Do everything by email and free media?

The last candidate I got anywhere near this involved with--John Glenn would you believe--did the same damn thing to me. Bastard people, all of them.

/pouts. Kicks can.

Decisions to be made later. Right now I am just wallowing in pissedoffedness.

0
No votes yet

Comments

Anna Granfors's picture
Submitted by Anna Granfors on

...that I have NO idea what I'm gonna do with my vote. neither one gets it straight off. (although whether either one is going to even try for it is another matter altogether.)

this stupid, stupid fucking country.

Submitted by lambert on

Announcement is at 1:00.

[x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

Anna Granfors's picture
Submitted by Anna Granfors on

...eff his name is, I'd have let someone else post the triumphant DKos diary.

it'll be interesting to see the continuing OFB reactions, I guess. but then, I always rubberneck at accidents, too.

shit.

Submitted by [Please enter a... (not verified) on

He's still on the ballot in Virginia so it gives me one opportunity to vote my first choice.

I agree it's ironic that he gets all the attention now from The Village that he couldn't get before because Obama and Clinton were sucking up all the media oxygen. Personally I hope he endorses no one.

My second choice is Clinton because I can't stand Obama. Either way I'll be holding my nose again this year.

leah's picture
Submitted by leah on

Please explain, someone.

Xan, I'm right there with you. I literally was awakened by the news; I use NPR as my alarm clock.

I just hope it has nothing to do with Elizabeth being in any way, worse.

We shouldn't think that the media isn't aware that they are presiding over the political funeral of someone they were only to happy to bring down. On the other hand, I think they're wrong. He's going to be speaking from New Orleans, and I rather imagine he'll go back to the theme of his announcement speech, that no president, no congress, acting alone can make the changes that need to be made to give us back a version of America that a majority of Americans can be proud of and a version of our government where citizens matter, all citizens, whose relationship with their government is a two way street all the time, not just at election time.

I think John will say that his work is not yet finished, and that there is as much to be done at the grass roots level than at the government level.

I suspect that money may have been the decider. To any Gods who might be listening, please don't let it be anything about Elizabeth's health, please, please, please.

vastleft's picture
Submitted by vastleft on

I honestly don’t know which way to go.

Pretty much every day, I feel kicked in the teeth by Obama, as I wrote to Farmer in comments last night:

The more I peel the Obama onion, the more I see his calculated disrespect of people like me (personally, and in terms of objectives).

The personal:
* Lifelong Democrats
* Baby Boomers
* Rationalists
* Secularists
* People with memories
* People who are angry at Bush and his forebears

The objectives:
* Fighting the Conservative Movement
* Convincing others to say “never again” to all that’s happened on Bush’s watch
* Having the criminality of the Bushies fully exposed and punished
* Having Bush’s incursions on the Constitution fully reversed
* Making the Democratic Party become more progressive, more popular, and more successful — and not a marginal party with one charismatic triangulator (i.e., not a replay of 1994, when the Reaganites re-revolted because Clinton’s third way didn’t kill or even tame the beast)

The Reagan thing is but one of countless examples, but his “W.O.R.M.” (http://www.correntewire.com/what_obama_r...) moment on Stephanopoulos’s show isn’t just “burnishing the Reagan show biz stategy.”

He is building a fucking monument to the most cherished and valuable Republican meme, that Democrats are the party of taxes and bloat. You’d have to work pretty hard to structure a better picture for Middle America of why Reagan Republicanism is a better brand than the damned Democrat Party:

“Well, I think that, keep in mind Ronald Reagan came in during the 1980s, at a time when, I think, Democrats still dominated Congress, when the view was that we were going to solve our problems, oftentimes, by expanding government programs, and he challenged many of those ideas.”

I understand this recoiling from all-Obama-disappointment-all-the-time, but that’s what I’m experiencing watching this campaign, and that’s what I, for one, am writing.

Obamism has turned into a religion, and that religion is teaching precepts that we progressives know to be wrong (and a zillion endorsements from Democrats I genuinely like don’t change that fact, just like I don’t think their Jesus is the son of God, no matter how many times they say “God bless America”).

How much disempowering shit do progressives have to eat to put a relatively benign guy in the White House?

In my opinion, not nearly as much as he’s feeding us. Even though he’s feeding us that shit with friendly cooing and “here comes the airplane” talk, we need to grab that hand and tell him, as best our little voices can, to put some decent food on that spoon before we’re going to take another bite.

Yet, at the end of the day, I know his platform is comparable to Hillary's, maybe a little better, maybe a little worse. And he's more electable, because he's more charismatic and he's unburdened by the mostly unfair baggage that's been dumped on the Clintons over the years.

I simply do not trust Obama to be less corrupted by the Beltway establishment than the battle-hardened Clintons already are. He’s far more committed than she is to bronzing the political frames that let the conservative movement keep rising from the dead. Like Bill Clinton, Obama’s suit will have a thin coat of Teflon, which is a real plus, but it won’t have much for coattails (unless the sea change that started in 2006 continues full force, and a serious Democratic majority comes to Congress).

I think Hillary actually wants to fight the bad guys, and I expect she’d have some success if she could win. It will be ugly taking on that machine and a hostile press, but she knows what she’s up against.

But I don’t doubt that Obama has a better chance of beating McCain.

So, who gets my vote next Tuesday?! Argh!!!!

Submitted by lambert on

The Village. Sigh.

[x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

leah's picture
Submitted by leah on

I think I was so astonished to find out that he was running for Senate as a Democrat, because even in those days, one thought of the career military as automatic Republicans, and after seeing a speech of his, which was very Kennedyesque, I said to my parents he's going to be President one day, and when he ran I volunteered. And this after having seen a life-sized statute of him carved from butter, I kid you not, at the Ohio State fair, (I'd gone to Ohio to work on a documentary of the beginning of his campaign).

I don't think he had the personality for the Presidency, and he was a pretty good Senator, a little conservative, maybe, but he came though in a pinch.

vastleft's picture
Submitted by vastleft on

... in an office, when people choose to accept an exit offer. In this case, I'm wondering what the quid pro quo was. I'm hoping there's some policy benefit, and possibly a senior Cabinet role for Edwards.

I have a hard time picturing him on the ticket, after the bad blood between Kerry and Edwards, but I suppose that's a possibility.

My guess is that if Obama wins, Hillary probably isn't his VP. If it's the other way around, Hillary will be pilloried if she doesn't reach out to Obama.

Submitted by lambert on

Again, it's the marginal utility** of the last Republican voter (if I have the economic jargon right).

Electorally focused OFB types see the value as high, and the cost of adding one more node to their network as very low (see Shystee's virality post).

Policy focused DFH types see the value as lower, and the cost as high, because of the fuzzing over or concessions on policy outcomes needed to attract them.

Concrete example:

Suppose what was on the table for Social Security was a two-tiered system where those below a certain age got private accounts, as the right wants.

The electorally focused might say, if that brings us to 65%, great.**

The policy focused might say, screw that. We can govern just fine with 55% or 58%, which is a "landslide" anyhow, at least for a Republican. It's not worth destroying Social Security just to gain the extra votes.

"For what doth it profit a man, if he gain the whole world, and suffer the loss of his own soul? Or what exchange shall a man give for his soul?" (Matthew 16:26).

NOTE * Leaving aside the idea that we can get control of the Senate. The OFB say this, but I've seen no evidence.

NOTE ** Googling about:

The "Law of Diminishing Marginal Utility" states that for any good or service, the marginal utility of that good or service decreases as the quantity of the good increases, ceteris paribus. In other words, total utility increases more and more slowly as the quantity consumed increases.

This is "diminishing returns" from the viewpoint of the consumer, and is a general principle of economics. There might be a threshold before the principle applies. For example, the marginal utility of golf clubs might increase until you have a fairly full set. But beyond some threshold, marginal utility will diminish with increasing consumption of any good.

I think for the OFB, more golf clubs is always better. Unity means Unity, ideally 100%.

[x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

vastleft's picture
Submitted by vastleft on

Don't you know that frames don't matter? It's all about being elected!

DCblogger's picture
Submitted by DCblogger on

It is a little difficult to know how Edwards could have preservered w/ free media when they did a media black out.

I am sad, but I saw it coming. Super Tuesday requires massive efforts across the nation. You have to have your operation in place while you are running in Iowa. This is why the money primary is so important.

I really don't care who wins the nomination now. I am voting democratic in the general, beyond that I intend to turn my attention to raising my tiny voice to support direct action efforts, like Lambert's great post on AT&T ending with the CEO's address.

Submitted by lambert on

Contact me by mail...

[x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

Once again, America will get what it deserves.

When I woke up this morning and noticed how gray and ugly the day was, I figured it must be because Hillary won our 'primary' yesterday.

At least I got to cast a vote for him* before he pulled the plug.

* - Edwards, not Rudy.

Submitted by [Please enter a... (not verified) on

Naturally, all the helpful Obamabots at the Big Orange Satan are recommending that Edwards supporters vote for Obama.

This is all a ploy just to get the media to finally cover John Edwards. When they all meet at 1pm for his press conference he gives them the finger and proclaims that he's still in this fight, and he's gonna win it, media be damned!

intranets's picture
Submitted by intranets on

That would be the awesomest plan ever. But, WTF can't he just wait until after Tues and get more delegates? What does he gain by dropping out, just run a skeleton campaign with no money or showing.

This is terrible, and I have to assume it is so he can keep his house, which I don't blame him.

shystee's picture
Submitted by shystee on

They couldn't even leave me the opportunity to vote for a mildly populist, anti-corporate candidate.

Now my choices are Old Triangulation vs. New Triangulation. Sweet.

Xan, I think yours is the best "reaction piece" I've read so far.

Submitted by [Please enter a... (not verified) on

As an Obama supporter I'd like to applaud John Edwards and his campaign. He's brought great issues to the debate that otherwise might have gotten short shrift and lately has been a voice of sanity helping pull the party back from irrevocable division. He was my first choice in 2004 and second in 2008.

I'd like to see Obama make him Attorney General. John can do this country a great public service prosecuting Republicans for their crimes against the constitution and Wall St. corner cutting wizards who have trashed the economy.

I think John's temperament as a trial lawyer is suited to righting those wrongs. Resurrecting and depoliticizing the DOJ will be a huge job in the next administration. If he decides to run again in 2016 it'll be a high profile job that'll keep him in the spotlight too.

Submitted by lambert on

The Village sees no upside in a functioning Justice Department, and there's no upside for Obama in giving a Presidential rival a platform.

Of course, I'm always willing to be surprised.

[x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

Submitted by [Please enter a... (not verified) on

Almost every freakin' liberal blog comments section this day is like watching Chris freakin' Matthews.
"This is good for Obama!"
"No way, this is good for Clinton!"
Personally, I don't give a flying fuck either way.
My guy is gone, and now I will have to pinch my nose tight when I vote in November.
Edwards made a good farewell speech.
The rest is silence.

nezua limón xolagrafik-jonez's picture
Submitted by nezua limón xol... on

yes...edwards was originally my choice right after kucinich. i knew it would come down to this, didnt all of us being pragmatic know that? the media machine was pushing the hillary vs obama theme since day one.

i could have voted for edwards with very little hesitancy.

edwards is endorsing obama. stay tuned for another endorsement for obama on friday. i can't say more.
___________________________
.delusions of un mundo mejor.

bringiton's picture
Submitted by bringiton on

The pile of disasters is too high for anyone to make them all better, and some of them are going to get a lot worse. Come 2012 a re-election will be anything but certain and the last thing either Clinton or Obama will want is a still-hungry Edwards running against them on a platform of "I told you so." They'll both try to co-opt him with something tempting; for them the safest spot to park him is the Supreme Court, and that's a tough one for a lawyer to resist.

Must find silver lining.

vastleft's picture
Submitted by vastleft on

... good independent candidates for us?

Oh, shit, that was out loud.

No, I'm still sticking to the-X-next-to-the-D, but relishing the thought of it a lot less. At least I thought I'd make a vote I was proud of next week....

Well, one thing never changes: the GOP will reliably put up a sociopathic authoritarian asshole that I'll be seriously committed to defeating. They're so resolute, which we're supposed to admire, I hear.

Submitted by [Please enter a... (not verified) on

this afternoon was a bit of a giveaway, wuzzn' it nezua?

However I don't know whether to expect it before Tuesday. If he waits till afterward and one or another already has a large lead he looks like an opportunist. If he does it beforehand and the party he endorses loses big time anyway he looks like a schmuck and an ineffectual schmuck at that. Any influence he might have on platform, discourse or issues goes down the crapper.

Donna Brazille, of all people, had a good point about the fact that he phrased it "suspending" his campaign rather than "halting" or ceasing or some other word of greater finality.

In states which are set up so that you vote in a primary for delegates specifically by name rather than for the candidate directly, he still has quite a lot of people out there. Some of them are of sufficient prominence/popularity that they may still win election to go to the convention.

Leaving the campaign in legal suspension (I almost said "zombihood" but that would be unkind) leaves open the possibility that if that satellite falls out of the sky next month smack on top of the scene of a debate and both the remaining candidates are suddenly no longer available, the motor can be kickstarted and put back in operation without having to be rebuilt from scratch.

And it's a polite gesture to those delegate candidates. That's what John Glenn did to me Leah; he dropped out three days before the Illinois primary which was the event wherein my name first appeared on a public ballot. First and only time in my life that I got home and found i had messages waiting from all three TV networks and several independent media outlets wanting to know where I was going to throw my support in the event i was elected.

This turned out not to be a problem... :)

leah's picture
Submitted by leah on

Love to hear the whole story sometime, maybe a post, though I'm in no position to make that suggestion...still I know the way you would tell it would provide both insight and quite a few deep laughs.

Submitted by [Please enter a... (not verified) on

I dreaded this day, but I'm still voting for John in the Primary. Reading the blogs made me realize a lot of the supporters for B.O. and Hil worry about electability. That worked so well for Kerry didn't it! They seem to forget that we are facing big issues and all the happy talk is just that. I felt (having little proof) that Edwards would fight for change. This is the only approached that has worked historically, so what is next? Four more years of eroding middle-class and war?

Sorry, I'm just very, very pissed.

Uncle Alice's picture
Submitted by Uncle Alice on

Well, if we're stokin up the dammit pile put another log on for me...cursed corporatistas.It really does feel hopeless sometimes.We know we'll be takin on the fight from the outside now.I hope you're right ,bringiton, and there is a place for a good man somewhere in that house of horrors.I'm going to find my tin can too.

Submitted by lambert on

Well, it's always better not being ruled by sociopaths. But the Village is the Village, and as I said above, they're the only winners here.

I'm not sure how much sense it makes to spend any more time on the Presidential race from the D side, at least for me; Obama could still surprise, but it would take something performative (say, filibustering FISA) to change my mind. As things are, better the devil I know.

Rather, savage the Rs and the Beltway Dems as needed, and prepare ourselves for whatever actions we're going to need to take on the policy side of the pincer.

[x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

Submitted by [Please enter a... (not verified) on

... whether Mr. Edwards needs help retiring his campaign debt? I made a promise to kick in if he'd take a stand on FISA, and to the best of his ability, he forced Clinton and Obama to deal with it. That deserves some praise.

Doesn't help my mood today; woke up to this news, and almost cried, at lunch. Can't we have a primary and convention season that means we speak up about which platforms and people we want, anymore? No? Well...

cgeye
[my login's been hosed for months]

Submitted by [Please enter a... (not verified) on

-- other than FISA and other Congressional issues that need attention, I'm checking out of the campaign swing until August. Neither Clinton nor Obama respect my issues, need my input or my cash, so I'll concentrate on GOTV when the time comes.

Submitted by lambert on

At least for me, I won't have to invest any more time on the threads at Kos. Let the dead bury their dead (Luke 9:60).

[x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

Submitted by [Please enter a... (not verified) on

Sometime I just wonder:

Do these people (aka the general public) deserve any better? If they are willing to vote against their interest even after the last few decades, then what can we do? They know that the media is crass and incorrigible. If they don't know that, then I'm not sure if I believe in Evolution any more.

They have seen the art of triangulation in the 90's. And if they are fooled by the new triangulator, then they deserve it. How much worse can the state of the union get before these folks comprehend what's going on? If they can't get their heads out of the sand and inform themselves of the deception around them, then they don't deserve a democracy.

It's ironic that NYtimes publishes an editorial today criticizing the democracy or lack thereof in Russia when we have a pseudo-democracy in our own backyard. The sad truth is, Russia also learned from the US that you can have a totalitarian state by disguising as a democracy.

Electing another hawk to the white house which is certain at this point is going to send a big "Fuck You" to the whole world and I'm sure nobody outside this country would appreciate that.

The nation is fundamentally going in a wrong direction and teeny weeny bipartisan course correction isn't going to cut it. But maybe one should be optimistic as Noam Chomsky advocated in a recent interview(on CSPAN BookTV) that the government cannot do certain egregious acts as was the case previously. Well it's been a long comment, I will continue my rant later.

FYI, Gleen Greenwald had a great piece today on the Bipartisanship pony at http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/

Submitted by [Please enter a... (not verified) on

Isn't it ironic that the year it's finally possible for a woman or a black male to get the Democratic nomination for president over a white male just happens to also be the year when the woman and black male candidates are more eager to fellate our corporate masters than the white male candidates. What a strange coincidence . . .

vastleft's picture
Submitted by vastleft on

I think this is the rub: "They know that the media is crass and incorrigible. If they don’t know that, then I’m not sure if I believe in Evolution any more."

I'm quite sure that the average person has no sense whatsoever that the media has been invaded by the bodysnatchers and replaced with pod people. They believe that the only foible of the media is a liberal bias, while if they're real sophistos, they mouth off once in a while about how there's too much coverage of Britney Spears.

In defense of the average person, s/he did vote for Gore and figured out in 2006 (a little late, but still...) that it was necessary to start booting out Republicans, and s/he has managed not to hate the Clintons as much as the entire media establishment worked its butt off to get them to.

But there isn't enough evolution that the average person decided to consider politicians that weren't considered part of the horse race or to develop a proper visceral detest for the bullshit bipartisanship meme.

vastleft's picture
Submitted by vastleft on

The ad at the bottom of Glenn's "bipartisanship" post. I don't know if that guy stands a chance, but may Darwin bless him!

nezua limón xolagrafik-jonez's picture
Submitted by nezua limón xol... on

Isn’t it ironic that the year it’s finally possible for a woman or a black male to get the Democratic nomination for president over a white male just happens to also be the year when the woman and black male candidates are more eager to fellate our corporate masters than the white male candidates. What a strange coincidence …

i actually dont think its a coincidence. i think due to the systems and structures in our society, a white male is always going to have to bow a little less to get through certain doors. ones that were made for him and his shape to move through expressly. i think you'd see this happen last year or next. until this nation changes a lot, that dynamic is always waiting to be seen by those looking. my take.

___________________________
.delusions of un mundo mejor.

vastleft's picture
Submitted by vastleft on

Does that suggest that for minorities to move up in government that they need to be especially accommodating to the power elites?

Does that mean a disproportional number of enablers/abetters like Colin Powell and Condoleeza Rice? Both project having the awareness to be less toxic than others in the administration, and yet both have been parties to the worst of the Bush sins.

I'm not saying I'm convinced of this theory, but I'm trying it on for size and considering what it might mean.

Personally, I'm loath to accept a lot of the "Barack can't do that because he's black" claims at face value, because in many ways we're in uncharted waters, and not just in his candidacy itself, but also in cultural changes (for example biracialism is worlds more accepted than when Obama was born), the degree to which the opposition party has debased itself, and so on. I'm not saying he runs without unique limits, but I think some -- including himself -- may be over-handicapping him at times.

Sarah's picture
Submitted by Sarah on

After that, quien sabe?
Hell with the DLC and the village. The media got its wish today: it's a one-on-one black man vs. white woman race for the Democrats.

People, if Edwards is on your ballot Tuesday, vote for him!

This breaks my heart. This is worse than the fucking Giants beating the Cowboys in the NFC title game.

I might be done with the Democrat party. Their best and brightest they kick to the curb; their sleaziest and least qualified, they deify. The DLC doesn't give a thin damn for the US Constitution or the average American citizen.

McCain's starting to look pretty damn good in the general.

Submitted by [Please enter a... (not verified) on

It is a sad day. I think Edwards would have swept the floor with McCain...now we have to worry about a country that may be too sexist, or too racist, to elect a woman or a man of mixed-race to the White House. I worry about that a lot, because this is still a very bigoted country in every way there is.

Dems can fool themselves...but make no mistake, this will be a very close race, whoever comes out of the Convention.

Edwards would have made a good president. Maybe even a great one. But he picked the wrong message at the wrong time. And he didn't sell it as well as I thought he could have, often sounding a bit canned.

Although exit speech today was very fine. Had tears in my eyes listening to it. I was going to vote for him. Now? Now, I dunno. I'll probably go for Obama, since I think he may have a slightly better chance against McCain than Clinton would.

Truth is, Americans don't want to face what they've done: elected a pair of genuine rogues to eight years in the White House. Americans are notoriously averse to introspection as a people. Now, American voters just want to *move on.* They don't want to examine what they did with any care. It might make them feel bad. And God knows, there's no American alive, apparently, who can stand to feel bad about themselves for too long.

Let's not forget: there are still over 50 million voters who voted for Bush AGAIN in 2004, when the evidence was clear just what he and Cheney were.

Those 50 million haven't gone anywhere. They're still just as savagely deluded, or just as ignorant, as they've ever been.

It's gonna be a terrible fight, folks. We better be ready.

Had Edwards been the nominee, I think we'd have put them away early, and they'd never have recovered. Now? Now it's going down to the wire.

bringiton's picture
Submitted by bringiton on

For anyone who isn’t an Anglo male to succeed politically in this country, they have to try and appear to be one. The challenge for Obama in the general isn’t whether he’s black enough, it’s whether he’s white enough and I’m not persuaded that this Yassuh, Nosuh, Halleluiah Jesus, I sho won’t hurt no fly! routine is going to sell. The problem for Hillary is that in trying to appear manly/strong enough she risks being seen as some sort of ball-busting harridan; rock and a hard place for her.

At this point any move to the Left could doom either of them in the general, I am concerned that the same middle electorate that gave Bush a shot, twice, will find it hard to vote for either a black man or a white woman unless they seem safe and entirely non-threatening. Can’t flat out blame them for being what and who they are because it did get them this far, and I’m just going to have to hope that once elected circumstance and constructive criticism will move them enough in progressive ways to do what needs doing. Half a loaf.

Sarah! McCain? Wash your mouth out.

vastleft's picture
Submitted by vastleft on

... is that a candidate that the media will give a fair break to (a heckuva qualifier I know), could do pretty well by being a whole lot more honest than anyone we've seen. I dunno, kind of a Bullworth approach (with, one hopes, better results), if memory serves.

Isn't it well understood by now that both Gore and Kerry's campaigns were too buttoned-down? Maybe the leading Dems could get away with, and maybe even thrive, being a little less cautious?

Sarah's picture
Submitted by Sarah on

Please, please, please.

Obama is nothing more less or else than Bush's 3rd term, in a cafe' au lait wrapper.

Seriously. The man is being praised to the heavens by the GOP. Not for his record. Not for his character. Because he's someone they see as one of them.

He has no room in his heart for gays.
He has no room in his America for the poor.
He does not give a damn about poverty, health care, education; last but far from bleeding least he will not end the war in Iraq and he has not ruled out attacking Iran.

Do not be fooled.

Please.

I heard Edwards' speech (Nice Polite Republicans' brief clip of it) on my way home from work today. I nearly wrecked my truck, because I couldn't see for the tears in my eyes.

I only pray it's not because Elizabeth is worse.

As far as the DLC/Obama/Clinton -- they did this to us four years ago when they torpedoed Dr. Dean.
Not another dime of my money, not another stamp, not another minute of my time. I'm done.

"Reagan Democrats" can go to hell, too. They've been the whole reason the media got the foothold to drag our national attitude (Overton Window) so far right so fast that now the nation I grew up in is unrecognizable.

I'm an FDR/LBJ Democrat, a JFK/Jimmy Carter Democrat, a John Edwards Democrat. I believe the American people deserve a President who cares for them, about them, works on their behalf (and no, "feeling their pain" isn't enough, damn it all to hell, so STFU, Bill Clinton!).

I believe that by the time I'm 65 we will have seen a Depression in this nation to rival the one of the 1930s, and I believe the media elites and the political wunderkinds will discover to their shame that by locking the doors against a man of the people who understood that our nation's enemies were not boogeymen in Middle Eastern appearances but corporate thieves and robber barons in plush offices, they doomed our country and our way of life.

I pray that God and the FSM will hold the Edwardses tenderly and lovingly in comfort and strength from this day forward.

We can admit that we're killers ... but we're not going to kill today. That's all it takes! Knowing that we're not going to kill today! ~ Captain James T. Kirk, Stardate 3193.0

Submitted by [Please enter a... (not verified) on

I hear you Sarah. But I just want to win. We simply can't afford another GOP president. Even with a Democratic congress..half those fucking Dems will roll over for McCain as it is.

With a Dem prez, we might be able to keep those Bush Dog Dems in line.

I'm very suspicious of Obama. But my decision now is, who can win against McCain? I fear Clinton is just too compromised. I've never understood why. I find nothing to hate in her...or even dislike, especially (other than some on her staff, who are pricks of the first order in some cases), but I think she's going to have a really difficult time against McCain.

I dunno who I'll vote for Feb. 5...the man I was going to vote for is gone, although I may just vote for him anyway. He'll be on the ballot.

Submitted by lambert on

One less delegate for the other two is good, and maybe does a smidgeon to keep Hilbama honest, or as honest as possible.

[x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

Sarah's picture
Submitted by Sarah on

His campaign is suspended; but perhaps we the people can poke the media and the corporations in the eye anyway.

Go read this, and then remember what we're fighting for, when we vote for Edwards.

We can admit that we're killers ... but we're not going to kill today. That's all it takes! Knowing that we're not going to kill today! ~ Captain James T. Kirk, Stardate 3193.0

Submitted by [Please enter a... (not verified) on

From Eric Alterman:

"The Edwards campaign was a surreal experience that should inspire a doctoral dissertation or two. He was both the most progressive candidate on issues and the most electable on paper, and yet he did not get the support of most progressives or most professionals. This despite the fact that he actually ran a terrific campaign and, more than Obama and Hillary, defined it in a positive direction. That he forced the other candidates to respond did not end up mattering as much as the media's fascination with all things Clintonian, Obamian, and the egregiously awful coverage of Edwards. The Washington Post deserves special mention for its idiotic 1,300-word piece on his haircut and an even longer one on his house. Richard Cohen and Michael Dobbs both called him a liar and presented no evidence. The editorial board attacked him constantly. The New York Times also went in for the 'How can you care about poor people when you're so rich?' line of questioning, which implies that poor people are unentitled to representation in the American political system, since it allows for only wealthy people to run. And Maureen Dowd was her usual awful, substanceless self, helping to set the tone for the rest, to the shame of all of us.

"McCain as the nominee is scary, too, because the media remain more in love with him than ever. Remember that picture of him hugging Bush? Put McCain in Bush's place and the punditocracy in McCain's place, and that's what we can prepare ourselves for. What's more, because the media love McCain and treat elections entirely as high school popularity contests, Republicans will not be held responsible for the last horrific eight years. Hillary Clinton is no match for McCain in this respect; they hate her, they love him. Obama is a match, but his anti-war position will be held against him, since most of the media were just as wrong as McCain about Iraq and feel themselves indicted by those of us, like Obama, who were right, and their natural defensiveness manifests itself in the form of petty vengeance. So-called liberal hawks, which is most liberals with a mainstream platform, will do McCain's bidding for the price of only being called by their first names on the bus. It's going to really suck.

"In any case, the Republicans have picked their only 'safe' general election candidate, and the Democrats have rejected theirs. The assumption of many is that it's a Democratic year, so the party can afford to take risks. Let's see ..."

http://mediamatters.org/altercation/2008...

Submitted by [Please enter a... (not verified) on

Yeah. It's all the medias fault.

What a bunch of wimps.

Boo Hoo.

He lived in Iowa for four years. And still lost.

Please join Edwards and go away.

Submitted by [Please enter a... (not verified) on

The press is going to be VICIOUS this year. Absolutely cutthroat. No gimmes, no passes. If you are a Dem, you are the numero uno target of the year.

If your name is Obama, you are being led to the slaughter with treats and good press coverage.

If your name is Clinton, you are being stabbed, bludgeoned, tripped, slashed and burned in as many ways as they can see fit; the establishment is trying as hard as it can to keep you from getting that nomination.

Looking at the polls now, with Obama still running behind Hillary in the nationwide contest, can you tell me which candidate is better suited to run the gauntlet of angry press? Can you tell me which candidate knows how to dodge, parry, thrust and roll, and which one is too used to strolling?

I'm sorry about Edwards; I was really torn between voting for him or for Hillary. Now the choice is clear, and so is my conscience.

Submitted by lambert on

Didn't you guys get told over at Kos not to gloat and show a little class, if only for a day? I suppose that's why you came over here....

[x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

Submitted by lambert on

Nezua asked me to post this for him to VL:

* * *
L, Does that suggest that for minorities to move up in government that they need to be especially accommodating to the power elites? of course!! more than government. in many areas of life. its not ideal, but it is practical. one can "keep it real" as they like...just dont forget the dave chappell skit. :) yes, its a disturbing idea, bro! the whole dynamic is disturbing. but it is reality. as CD said, could obama "Malcolm out" and get this far? No. Why? Because of the way white people would get freaked out. Left and Right. It's preferred and nicer to imagine that principle could carry him through, despite his being black....but thats just not the way the world is. reality demands some careful treading for him.

i am NOT saying this = his goodness is all hidden under some cloak of calculation. one is a reality of the world applied as a possible explanation for some of his behavior. i dont know how much or to what behavior. but i know the dynamic is real. Does that mean a disproportional number of enablers/abetters like Colin Powell and Condoleeza Rice? Both project having the awareness to be less toxic than others in the administration, and yet both have been parties to the worst of the Bush sins. the danger, yes, is people like that. getting into power. I’m not saying I’m convinced of this theory, but I’m trying it on for size and considering what it might mean. okay. Personally, I’m loath to accept a lot of the “Barack can’t do that because he’s black” claims at face value, because in many ways we’re in uncharted waters, and not just in his candidacy itself, but also in cultural changes (for example biracialism is worlds more accepted than when Obama was born), the degree to which the opposition party has debased itself, and so on. I’m not saying he runs without unique limits, but I think some — including himself — may be over-handicapping him at times.

heh. well. i am loathe to accept it too. but i know its reality. the question is...how much is doing what he knows he has to because he is aware of the system. and how much is ...not. that i cannot answer. and just because "biracialism" is more accepted doesnt matter. obama struggles with the image of being black, not biracial. we KNOW he is biracial. but when he catches hate, its for being black. not mixed. when he has to struggle for legitimacy in the white power structure it is because he is seen as black. not mixed. when he gets assigned secret service because of threats, it is not anti-biracial violence that chases him. ___________________________ .delusions of un mundo mejor.

Submitted by [Please enter a... (not verified) on

Dear Anonymous OFB Coward,

While the corporate media has been complicit in the destruction of the political process in this country, that destruction is certainly not ALL the media's fault. They couldn't do what they do without the idiot American voters who allow themselves to be pulled mindlessly around by their noses and vote time after time after time against their own best interests. The corporate power structure decided immediately after that 2004 convention speech that 2008 was going to be all about Corporatist Clinton vs. Corporatist Obama, and easily duped suckers like you and the other members of the Obama/Clinton personality cults have been more than happy to allow yourselves to be co-opted onto a bandwagon so you could feel like part of the rock concert, even if means taking a crap on your own best interests. Congratulations for being part of the Feel Good Pony Ride. Hope you find it a worthwhile tradeoff in the end.

Oh, and none of that pathetic OFB whining when the media, after deciding that it really does want another Republican hack after all, goes all Howard Dean on your candidate if/when he does wrap up the nomination . . .

vastleft's picture
Submitted by vastleft on

Do you agree that the "because he's black" construction is subject to serious abuse?

It worries me because it can be both a "get out of jail free" and a "go into jail without proof" card.

It can be said to excuse bad politics ("as a black man he has to..."), to doubt his sincerity about his positions ("he's only saying that because's a black man, otherwise..."), and to convict the public of racism where it may not be present or prevalent ("he lost in that state because he's black.")

So I'll continue to be wary about swallowing it whole, while also understanding that he is never not -- at least in some dimension or someone's perception -- "the black candidate," and merely "a candidate."

vastleft's picture
Submitted by vastleft on

... wasn't to say that I thought he wasn't perceived as "the black candidate," but to offer that as an example of the hard-to-quantify progress in the public's perceptions.

The fact that the average white person isn't freaked out (in either direction) by the media's discussion about whether Obama is acting "black enough" shows that we're in some uncharted waters and not really sure how much racism will affect his bid.

Submitted by [Please enter a... (not verified) on

"Didn’t you guys get told over at Kos not to gloat and show a little class, if only for a day? I suppose that’s why you came over here…."

You're joking, right. I stop by occassionally to just read the vile you guys right about Obama. Edwards deserves respect, you guys deserve all the stick you get. Show a little class and you get some...

intranets's picture
Submitted by intranets on

I know LB will hate me for this, but you guys got it all wrong. The Dems are trying their best to lose (yet again) the easiest presidential year election ever handed to them. Please tell me (climate wise not strength of candidate) of another year with a bigger GOP mess, more GOP sex scandals, a worse economy, lowest USD power ??? in a long time, highest oil prices ever, worst housing market ever, worst foreign policy and opinion ??? ever.

They take this and turn it into a skin of their teeth election, by only allowing the worst candidates on the stage to remain.

I know anyone but the cthulhu crime family, but I'm sorry, and maybe I'll come around to Obama, but that would be it. Anyone who professes this I'll vote for whoever the DLC shoves in front of my face is at serious risk for needing a cult-detox, or being a victim of long term abuse. I spent all my "hope" and "give them a chance" on Nancy and Harry. It's over, I'd rather vote for certain doom, then keep playing the maybe-they'll-do-the-right-thing game.

I may be a little too hard on Dems, and feel free to ignore me. Just pretend I'm a voter, and you are a Congressperson. But, this is the case where the country is on the verge of totally falling apart. The GOP is on the verge of becoming an openly gay crime syndicate. I say let Huckabee take office and things will be so bad that there will be a mass revolt. Electing Obama, Clinton, or McCain won't bring the troops home any sooner. And I'm really having trouble seeing how 3 yrs from now will be any different with Clinton in office? Maybe no bombing of Iran? With Obama, I'm not as sure. With McCain, I know for sure.

Submitted by lambert on

I'm not sure you're digging yourself deep enough fast enough....

[x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

Submitted by [Please enter a... (not verified) on

good post by meteor blades at Kos (excerpt). Intranets should read it. Its a stallions of defiance thing.:

However, what John said Wednesday wasn’t all or even mostly about Democratic politics. It wasn’t about "people-powered politics" as a slogan, but rather the reality. And people-powered politics – long before the phrase was invented – has always been about a broad-based people’s movement outside of electoral politics. Students for a Democratic Society, in its sane, early days, had a good name for it: "participatory democracy." But I’m not just talkin’ ’bout my generation.

The Abolitionists, the feminists and suffragists, the trade union organizers, the Grangers, the Jim Crow foes, the environment champions, the opponents of unjustified wars, the fighters for gay rights, the human rights advocates – every reform movement – began and continued its struggle outside party politics. Only after years, often decades, did the fruit of those struggles become confirmed by legislation passed by elected officials. Struggles into which people gave up their money, their energy and time, their liberty and, sometimes, their lives before politicians did more than give lip service to the causes they espoused. Without the movements, reforms never would find a place on the national agenda; without sympathetic politicians, they would never be implemented. It’s a difficult, but essential pairing.

[Read} Not Goodbye.
by Meteor Blades
http://dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/1/31/...

*

kelley b's picture
Submitted by kelley b on

How will the election of Hilbama have any different consequences than that of McCain?

I dunno. Maybe there will be an appreciable difference in the amount of radioactive strontium in your bones. Maybe there will still be whales in the world at the end of the Hilbama preznitcy.

It's the difference between bad and worse, which is always more painful than between good and better.

Don't let the blaze of history become a firestorm. Edwards, like Gore, will be there to try to hose the worst of it: volunteer firemen. You be there, too.

It will help you sleep better at night.

No Hell below us
Above us, only sky

nezua limón xolagrafik-jonez's picture
Submitted by nezua limón xol... on

VL, sorry...the page would not post for me before. thanks to lambert for conveying the comment.

yes, VL i do see how the line/view could be used in poor ways. as anything can, i suppose. i dont pretend my own views and perceptions and thoughts on these things are big or strong enough to convince anyone...or that they should. they are just my views and thoughts, etc. and generally in flux.

as a favorite reggae singer said in the days of my youth, "time will tell."

___________________________
.delusions of un mundo mejor.

nezua limón xolagrafik-jonez's picture
Submitted by nezua limón xol... on

i mentioned an announcement happening friday. i apologize. someone who works in someone's campaign led me to believe something that i hinted at here. but clearly they were misinformed, as was i.

___________________________
.delusions of un mundo mejor.