Very true. Edwards and Clinton are my two favorite of this cycle. Both running very solid campaigns.
Posted by coral at October 13, 2007 10:20 AMeriposte,
Once again, we agree! John Edwards has singlehandedly pushed the Democratic debate toward the progressive. Democrats SHOULD be comfortable with many of his positions. We should stand for something! Voters are well able to recognize integrity and consistent positions as regards to true values,with which they agree.
Posted by DeminNewJ at October 13, 2007 10:32 AMI've always liked Edwards. His Two Americas theme was the best speech in the 04 cycle (did he abandon that?) and yes, his views and policy proposals are solid, and well presented for the most part. Unfortunately for him, he's become the Media's "Gore" for this cycle, i.e. constantly digging up minor issues and inflating them into "big news", such as the hair cut thing. The only real knock I've ever had on Edwards is that his accent is really strange to lots of America. Also, I heard him waffle to the extreme when asked some questions back in 04. Too bad Hillary and Obama have taken the light off him and his message, his current low ratings won't garner any serious considerations regarding his policy plans, but if they can serve to push Hillary even slightly off center, its good. At this point, I'm not sure where he's headed, but it won't be the WH. At least not this time.
Posted by T2 at October 13, 2007 10:58 AMT2,
While I agree that Edwards is having a tough time getting past Obama and Clinton, the race isn't over yet. Not by a long shot. It's still pretty close in Iowa.
That said, I am personally very disappointed that Sen. Edwards decided to go the public financing route until the convention. This places an enormous burden on 527s, the DNC and other groups in terms of raising money and significantly jeopardizes his ability to fight back in the paid media until the Dem convention, if he wins the primaries. I wish he had not done this.
Posted by eriposte at October 13, 2007 11:07 AMThis is a significant point. Someone has to stake out the progressive end of the spectrum. With all the lemmings running the "center" as they have been for decades now, there's very little room for differentiation, much less innovation.
I had a similar discussion with someone over twenty years ago, when they couldn't understand why I liked having Ron Dellums as my congressman, since none of his ideas had any chance of being enacted.
I explained that it was important to have those ideas aired and discussed, even if they weren't adopted. If nothing else, having someone moving farther to the "left" causes the nominal "center" to move, too. And now and then, elements of those progressive proposals would sneak into actual legislation.
If no one is talking about it, it doesn't happen.
Very convincing argument, very well written.
But when people talk about Edwards and how he's leading the pack with bold progressive proposals...
Why are we pretending Dennis Kucinich doesn't exist?
Better question: Why is Edwards electable and Kucinich is not?
Across the street, there's a Ron Paul guerilla revolution going on. The libertarians are fighting tooth and nail. What are the progressive liberals doing?
If your heart cries out for progressive policy changes, then throw your energy into DK. That guy's so progressive, you won't be able to keep up with him.
Why are you satisfied with Edwards? And so early in the race!?!
Has Kucinich said anything you disagree with? Throw your energy behind the man. You wanna be progressive? Then demand DK and let's light this bitch up!
Eriposte, it may be early, but 13% is not good, early or late and that is the level he's polling at nationally. And Edwards isn't running for president of Iowa. My feeling is that HIllary has a lock, even if Gore entered. There are certain things that have an inevitability, like it or not. Sure it's early, but this is a campaign like no other we've had, timeframe-wise. I think that reflects the nation's eagerness to get George W. Bush behind us. Whether Hillary is the answer for that, time will tell. Rudy or any Republican is not the answer for that.
Posted by T2 at October 13, 2007 02:25 PMI think that reflects the nation's eagerness to get George W. Bush behind us. Whether Hillary is the answer for that, time will tell. Rudy or any Republican is not the answer for that.
With the exception of Ron Paul. Who actually IS the answer for that.
Posted by MaskedVigilante at October 13, 2007 02:48 PMI think that reflects the nation's eagerness to get George W. Bush behind us.
You got that right! That's why the primaries are so early and campaigning began in January.
And MV, I love Kucinich, and I'm glad he's there, too, for pretty much the same reason as I was glad for Dean, and even Al Sharpton in '04; they said what needed to be said freely, without the constraint of being a serious contender.
But Ron Paul? He really doesn't have a chance, thank goodness. It's disconcerting, really, how many people have been distracted by his siren call - he says loudly what he knows every wants to hear, yet when you scratch the surface, you find icky stuff under the veneer.
Posted by iamcoyote at October 13, 2007 07:02 PM"Why are we pretending Dennis Kucinich doesn't exist?"
Yes, why? It's nice that Edwards is leaning left, and I like a lot of his ideas, but Kucinich and Gravel seem much more progressive. It's as if progressives have accepted the common wisdom that our ideas are too radical to really be taken seriously.
Posted by cnmne at October 14, 2007 08:27 AMIt's as if progressives have accepted the common wisdom that our ideas are too radical to really be taken seriously.
Yes, thank you. Exactly the point I was trying to make. Admittedly, Gravel has too much "crazy old man" for anybody to take seriously, but Kucinich has been there all along.
Go back and read what "kooky" things he said during the 2004 debates. It's the same stuff everybody else is saying now. Is that not the definition of progressive?
But still the left is focusing on the 3 "top tier" candidates, two of whom still can't agree on the best way to apologize for not having the foresight in 2004 that Kucinich had.
Funny old world.
Posted by MaskedVigilante at October 14, 2007 09:09 AMBut Ron Paul? He really doesn't have a chance, thank goodness.
Because some white supremacy group endorses him? You know that's not his fault. He has no message of hate for minorities or anybody else.
his siren call - he says loudly what he knows every wants to hear, yet when you scratch the surface, you find icky stuff under the veneer.
I don't think he's saying what everybody wants to hear -- I think he's talking about freedom and people are responding to that.
What icky stuff are you referring to? The endorsement from the creepy people? Or the guts of the libertarian philosophy that Tucker Carlson thinks we won't like? (I just watched Friday's Real Time ep.)
Posted by MaskedVigilante at October 14, 2007 09:17 AMOr the guts of the libertarian philosophy
There you go.
Posted by iamcoyote at October 14, 2007 09:39 AMWell, as a self-proclaimed libertarian who has previously voted for Dr. Paul, Tucker sure pissed all over the party during his Bill Maher appearance.
Yeah, there's some reality-shaking stuff that the libertarians want. Stuff liberals don't argree with. That's fine. I think a lot of that stuff can and would be done very gradually.
Tucker basically said, "Hey you liberals who think you love Ron Paul: there's scary stuff in there that you won't like, so let's stop pretending we love the guy."
I question whether Tucker's really a libertarian. A libertarian would've said, "Listen, don't just trust Ron Paul because you think it's fashionable. Google libertarianism. Do your own research, because there's more to it than you think."
Posted by MaskedVigilante at October 14, 2007 12:47 PMCoyote, I wouldn't believe a thing the whale-guy says. Anyone who takes the word of Morris Dees' scam shop has no credibility.
I know your link is going to point to the infamous Paul newsletter as evidence of racism. I'm not buying it. Paul had reportedly never accepted Medicaid or Medicare. Surely there must be an instance of denial of medical treatment that has shown evidence of racism. If you can show us a link I will reconsider my opinion. If he is a corporate shill, please explain why there are no large corporations funding him.
Yes, he has some unsavory people supporting him. David Duke ran as a Republican. Lyndon Larouche ran as a Democrat. Robert Byrd was once in the KKK. If this is the worst dirt they have on Ron Paul (and I'm sure there is plenty of oppo research underway) he has come out far better than any of the other candidates with the possible exception of Kucinich.
Posted by skeptic at October 14, 2007 02:06 PMI can't believe how evryone is willing to settle for a pale shadow of Edwards for president, when we can have the real thing! If Edwards wasn't in the race, there would not have BEEN any health proposals-he has consistently forced Hillary to come up with something-she doesn't want to solve problems, she just wants to be president-she reminds me so much of Bush, it's nauseating-I don't believe the polls at all-No one I know can stand her-It would be a grave mistake to have Clinton in charge-It's her fault we had Bush elected instead of Gore-If she and her husband had been honorable in office, we would have avoided the present nightmare-between the scandal and Nafta. I've had enough of this Bush/ Clinton/ Bush nonsense-this is supposed to be America, not England. Got with it and support Edwards-He's the real deal-He's for US!
Posted by jeanruss at October 15, 2007 01:24 PM