"...John Edwards has run a campaign of appealing economic populism but never an embrace of the fight against anything real implemented by Bush: no promise to repeal all the tax cuts...."
uh, how do you think Edwards will pay for his health care plan?
and right now Dodd is the only Dem showing some embryonic form of a backbone
Posted by gay veteran at October 27, 2007 08:19 AMparadox:
Although disappointed in her character and horribly convoluted embrace of liberalism there is one element to Hillary Clinton’s candidacy I am truly looking forward to: she will take on a fight to win the presidency in 2008.
Those are large problems. You have a large problem.
Posted by Toby Petzold at October 27, 2007 09:05 AM"Bill Clinton and James Carville hit not only fast, they hit hard with issues Americans really cared about."
i remember - bill clinton did run on issues we care about.
i also remember that he then governed as a neolib - for example giving us nafta instead of healthcare.
.
It is said that the right WANTS Hillary to be the nominee, as they believe opposition to her will energize their base to get out the vote.
However, their base is so illogically extreme that many centrists and leftists who see the danger of continued rightist maladministration, will also be motivated to get out the vote -- if only to properly marginalize the foaming-at-the-mouth faith-based lunatics whose lack of governing skills/talent have brought our nation to the brink of ruin.
So. It boils down to: if she IS the nominee, let the mouth-foamers rant about Hillary. It will only serve to further demonstrate their obsessive destructive behaviors rather than any idea of what to do with positions of leadership.
Posted by jcricket at October 27, 2007 11:47 AMParadox, aren't you praising the DLC here. They cared for you, cared for your issues, fought for you and your issues. These phony Democrats just care about politics.
Posted by peter at October 27, 2007 11:48 AMSen. Clinton isn't my 1st, 2nd or 3rd choice, but if the flying monkey squadrons of the right try to monsterize her, they'll rain a world of burning molten retribution upon their own pointy, vacuous heads.
They simply don't have the finesse to insult her cleverly and without sounding like the frightened ball scratching misogynistic douchebags that they are.
Additionally, I predict that not only will any new scurrilous, invented anti-Clinton outrages bring this hard rain, the wrongies will also have to eat some piece of crap they got away with in the nineties.
If they try to fight her, she'll win. Again, I don't like her politics. I WILL vote for her IF the flying monkey squadrons of the right go after her.
("If people don't stop saying incredibly sexist things about Hillary Clinton, I may just have to vote for her." Katha Pollit)
Posted by Ellie at October 27, 2007 02:15 PMparadox,
I was hoping you would author an incoherent rant about the California fires: I am only half disappointed.
Regards,
Bagley
Posted by Bagley at October 27, 2007 04:10 PMEllie certainly nailed it. I can not say it any better. However, I do not trust James Carville, certainly not with that wife of his. The best thing that Hillary has going for her is the BIG DOG! He can win by proxy. That is why the evil ones, the Darth Vaders hate and fear him so!
Posted by Don Quixote at October 27, 2007 05:33 PMbill clinton was a republican lite in democrat's clothing. and selise has it right, he delivered, among other things, a reactionary neo-liberal nafta treaty instead of health care. i live in mexico and can vouch for how horrible this has been on this side of the border alone, massive displacement of farmers and indigenous especially as the agricultrual sector has taken a horrible hit. as long as the neo-liberal model rules mexico and the US, there will be millions of mexicans heading north or dreaming of it....
i don't see anything from hilary that strikes me as being particularly progressive either. i mean considering the state of the world and our whole planet, all of these guys and one woman are sadly lacking in ideas and the big picture. do i hear any of them really talking about global warming, population control, environmental degredation worldwide - hell no. yeah they pay some lip service ok ok. everyone in europe and even the 'conservatives' there are on board on most of these issues and trying to actually DO something about it. oh i forgor, the usa is the land of 'free enterprise' (only the cost is born by the rest of the planet), the SUV and the throw away culture.....but i digress sorry
personally i tend to favor edwards because of his economic ideals and his hammering away at the two americas theme, which is very pertinent (hate his stand on the war); and dodd because he has stood up to bush on several issues, and he's a good true old time liberal. maybe neither of these guys have enough national support to win the nomination, but they are certainly affecting the national dialogue. i agree completely with richardson, get the hell out of iraq tomorrow.
i think the mainstream media 'favors' clinton out of any of these becuase she's the clearly the most corporate of them all, and because the elites are afraid of edwards' populism and dodd's cajones/balls.
it did occur to me that perhaps with all the spying and eavesdropping by the cheneyites they do have something on many of the top demoRats like reid and rockefeller which explains their behavior. though it's more likely just something in the water that the elites have been drinking the last 27 years.
any of them can beat any republican candidate in 2008. i don't care what the media says. and the economic meltdown next year will only add to the backlash against the repukelicans.
Posted by michael72 at October 27, 2007 07:48 PM"They simply don't have the finesse to insult her cleverly and without sounding like the frightened ball scratching misogynistic douchebags that they are."...(Ellie)
While I agree with the point you are making, isn't calling someone a douchebag in itself a misogynistic act?
Posted by TIKI AL at October 28, 2007 04:37 AMbagless bagley: "I am only half disappointed."
appropriate since you are a half wit
The only reasonable prospect we have for change is Edwards. michael72 was right, Bill Clinton was the best moderate Republican president we ever had
Posted by gay veteran at October 28, 2007 09:43 AMBush (I), Clinton (I), Bush (II)...Clinton(II)?
gee, our very own War of the Roses
Posted by gay veteran at October 28, 2007 11:49 AMThere are a couple of reasons why Americans want Hillary. She talks about the issues that people care about. I think the right wing fears her like the plague. Then there is the "big dog" he is at 63% popularity while Bush and his policies are at 24%. People know that Hillary can hit the ground running on Day one. Being a woman she can be tough without having to be a macho cowboy like Bush, who by the way is afraid of horses. Obama had to announce at a News Conference that he was going to attack Hillary but he had better be careful because people don't like comments like he is NOT going to kneecap Hillary. Did he mean he thought about it before he decided not to do it?
The difference between Hillary and Obama is that people knew Hillary but they have discovered they like her better the more they see her. Obama started out as a new face with a new kind of "can't we all get along" politics and now he wants to go for her jugular. I don't believe people will except that kind of attack from the boy wonder.
Posted by s hall at October 28, 2007 11:56 AM