Two immediate thoughts: I don't think there is a disconnect between populism and personal wealth. It's entirely possible for an authentic populist to accumulate wealth. If the wealth is accumulated or used in ways that don't match the populist message, then that is a problem - it's called hypocrisy.
Second: Edwards' votes as reported truly are abominable. Despite the rhetoric of populism, he appears to have voted like a good corporate republican. That raises the hypocrisy issue again - how does Edwards' populist message align with these votes?
I like the guy when I hear him speak, but I have concerns when I read about his votes.
Posted by angel at November 29, 2007 07:31 AMIf John would have been as iconoclastic as he is now...back when Bush was over 90%...there is a fair chance he wouldn't have survived to tell the tale. He would now be hanging out with Donahue, pining about the good old days.
Instead, he did what nearly everybody else did, sad to say. He accepted the president at his word, and survived the mass-hynotism. Were he to have stayed in the Senate, he would have to cater to the needs of North Carolina, instead of the bigger prize toward which he has risen. We are the beneficiaries.
Silence is betrayal. And the Media brownout of Edwards is also a betrayal. And part of the corruption he wants to rise above. What's wrong with having the candidates wrestle naked? No extra weapons. No endless supply of bait.
May the best man or woman win. Not simply the one with the most payola. Shun the cheating. It is entirely infra dig. What are we...Republicans?
Posted by MrWondrous at November 29, 2007 07:35 AMWhat I'm looking for in a Democratic candidate is someone who will defeat the Republi-cons.
Even though I will support them if they get the nomination. Hillary will have a very tough time, (yes, gender is a factor) and the anti-Hillary crowd is powerful. Obama will not win, the GOP will try to tie him to Osama and OMG, he's black.
Edwards is a white, christian male, just what a 'coookie cutter' President is supposed to be. And he will probably win the southern states.
Which politician running is not a hypocrite?
SoS, I agree with your points except the "probably win the southern states". DId you mean in the nomination process or the general (should he be nominated)? I don't see any Dem winning down south...although a Dem president would be the best thing to happen to the South.
Posted by T2 at November 29, 2007 08:04 AMHmmm. And Edwards wouldn't "pledge" in the debate a while back that he would get the US out of Iraq by the end of his term. Why should anyone pledge now? I suppose everyone needs a gimmick, but loyalty pledges are sucky no matter who's putting them out. With every misstep like this, I'm liking Edwards less and less. How disappointing.
Posted by iamcoyote at November 29, 2007 08:06 AMYeah T2, I should have said might win some southern states and not turn off the NASCAR crowd.
Posted by Seven of Six at November 29, 2007 08:18 AMGiven your reliably incoherent ramblings here over the past several years, I think Senator Edwards is fortunate not to have your support, eriposte. Thank you for pledging it.
Honestly, I read everything Steve has to say here, and I've enjoyed Mary's posts. They both write well. You are a mess though. Most of the time I read the first sentence or two of your posts and I have to give up because you fail to say what you're going to say right up front. I consider that style of writing devious and deceptive. Can't think of why Edwards or any of us who support him would want you.
But this is just petty. Of course the "pledge" is a marketing gimmick. Of course it's a teaser. And it may strike a note that's dissonant with earlier passages in Edwards career. Yes it catches attention. That's what it's supposed to do.
Anyway, as usual, I'm not sure what you're getting at here except to vent your frustration. We get more than enough of that from paradox. There's no scandal here. A contradiction that's worthy of note, but, it's been noted and will be noted again repeatedly by Democratic opponents. I know you're not on anyone's side, so I won't ask.
PS to Steve. Can't you find better writers than eriposte for your top-level posters? It occurs to me that his posts are some sort of subtle mindfuck thing that you endorse or encourage. I think they're just mediocre. Better quality on the front page please.
Posted by NealB at November 29, 2007 08:43 AMGee, NealB, maybe it's not eriposte's writing that's the problem, since most of his readers understand just fine. P'raps the problem is your inability to comprehend. Or maybe you think marketing gimmicks are "cool" (is that a stuffed taco bell dog on your pillow?), but thinking people know that the more inferior the product, the greater the need for gimmickry.
Oh, and fuck you if you don't recognize scholarly writing!
Posted by iamcoyote at November 29, 2007 09:02 AMeriposte,
We already know your a Clinton supporter so maybe you could tell me why I should vote for her?
And please something more than 'if you don't vote for Hilary you're suffering from CDS.'
I guess you haven't read the polls in the south. Hillary does very well in Bush states like KY, TN, VA, etc. not to mention OH.
Her gender is helpful. It is the majority and she has done very well with Rep. women and will again.
If you want a winner, Hillary is it. If you don't have a serious objection, or think that we can't afford another Rep administration, Hillary is it.
Posted by logic101 at November 29, 2007 09:26 AMI agree...I have no problem with the main page writing on TLC...much better than many of the other blogs out there.
The only "complaint" I have with eriposte's piece is the simple black/white view of Edwards' votes. Every yes/no vote can be spun to be a vote for/against something good or something bad. There are very few votes that are stand-alone items...and almost all votes are based on some sort of compromise...I'll vote for your bill which I don't really like if you vote for mine.
But if you don't agree with my view of Congressional voting, how did Hillary vote on those issues?
Too curious.
A few days ago I put up a pledge on finance reform. OK, but in July I put up a pledge for Americans to sign to ask for the firing of Gonzales, and two days later the Edwards campaign had a pledge up to fire Gonzales.
They have done it again.
On 11/26 I put up a pledge asking for Americans to sign for effective anti-campaign finance corruption laws, and now Edwards has one.
Is the Edwards campaing site based on cheap plagiarism? Have they no ideas of their own to contribute? Is some campaign tech a troll/lurker on petition sites and stealing the good ones and proposing them for their site?
That would indicate a campaign that is happy with boosting Edwards at the expense of Americans with ideas and gumption.
Nack in 2004 I was in Vermont and there were some very nasty rumors about top management stealing ideas and boosting the ideas as their own. How high up in their tech staff does the stink go?
Here's my November 26 note asking people to sign a campaign finance petition.
=============================================
I was surprised to learn that campaign finance reform laws were initiated by Teddy Roosevelt and the first one was the Tillman act of 1907. This year we celebrate the centennial of ineffective campaign finance reform laws.
So I put up a little petition, the title is
100 Years of Campaign Finance Reform, not
the petition text, on the grounds that everyone loves sarcasm, is brief:
-------------------
This petition recognizes the many efforts of tens of thousands of US Senators, US Representatives, their aides and staffers, and the lobbyists and lawyers who for the last century, since the Tillmann act of 1907, have prevented effective campaign finance reform and allowed monied interests to control and corrupt democracy in America.
-------------------
The link is
http://www.petitiononline.com/camprefr/petition.html
So please sign it if you like, and if you feel we really should recognize the efforts so many people have dedicated over a century to prevent democracy in America.
After all, everybody loves sarcasm.
Jay
=======================================
And from July 26, Dump Gonzales
=======================================
Hi
Not finding one to join, I created an on-line petition to dump the creep, Atty. General Gonzales.
http://www.petitiononline.com/dumpgonz/petition.html
If this is not of interest, I apologize for bothering your inbox. If it is, please noise it around.
=================================================
Jay Nickson
I don't agree with eriposte a lot of the time and don't care for over-bolding. Strong, well-written statements stand on their own. S/he's welcome to sign or not sign whatever. Having a front page voice is a slight advantage, but at least we readers can comment (and run our own little blogs).
I did sign the pledge referenced and do tend to sign things that I agree with so long as they don't require too much personal information and don't require financial contributions.
The point is, at least we all still have a voice - at least until something like the egregious Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007:
`(3) The Internet has aided in facilitating violent radicalization, ideologically based violence, and the homegrown terrorism process in the United States by providing access to broad and constant streams of terrorist-related propaganda to United States citizens.gets through Congress. (This already passed the House and currently languishes in the Senate.) Posted by dus7 at November 29, 2007 10:16 AM
Driving into work this noon, I happened upon the Glenn Beck program. Now don't weep for me, Left Coasters . . . when you listen to the subtext and the unspoken, you hear some interesting things.
For one thing - Beck and his crowd hate Hillary (& Bill) no less than before. Frothing, drooling, spitting . . Obama or other Democrats are inconsequential unless Harry or Nancy have pissed them off recently. Beck was convinced that not only does Hillary Clinton have the nomination locked up (and keeps it covered up), but that she's sleeping with Chinese financiers, and that her vast conspiracy can keep every violation of values that she commits secret.
When Eriposte publishes on Democratic Clinton Derangement Syndrome, man . . that's only one EPA Superfund site. Republican CDS is still alive, well, poisoning the ground water and sapping and impurifying all those millions of Rippers' precious bodily fluids.
They know Giuliani is a scumbag, but if there's a gunfight, they want the mean sumbitch scumbag shooting for them. Tancredo (and Duncan Hunter) is adored for his brown menace policies. Paul is adored for Gold Standard conservatism like Kucinich is loved by many of us for his Department of Peace. And most importantly - Romney is a good man, an excellent business leader who will be the kind of excellent chief executive that will make America great again.
I thought the only way a person could get so jacked was from smoking crack and meth.
Posted by idiosynchronic at November 29, 2007 10:59 AMIf edwards can't be the Democratic president, by golly let it be a republic. John-boy is the best snake-oil salesman around, almost topping rudy.
Posted by Sally at November 29, 2007 11:58 AMiamcayote:
Fuck scholarly writing.
Posted by NealB at November 29, 2007 12:59 PMHeh. That's what Bush says...
Posted by iamcoyote at November 29, 2007 01:04 PMI LOVE this...to all the Trolls: Speaking of the Bush Admin,
"There's where they have failed the country,". "They've squandered the time and the opportunity that they had, and the next president is going to take four years to not only dig out from under that."
The speaker of those words....Chuck Hagel, Republican Senator.
Posted by T2 at November 29, 2007 01:04 PMIf you're quoting him right...thats a weird last sentence, where's the "but"? He's retiring, we're onto 'next', soon to be Senator Johanns. Just another departure statement, why didn't he say this when it mattered?
I saw that Lott may be working with former Sen. Breau (D-LA).
I see we have a John Kennedy running against Mary Landrieu, he's already favored in a Zogby poll.
Posted by peter at November 29, 2007 01:20 PMI find this post very convincing. I have wavered about whether I find Edwards trustworthy. Now I am convinced he is the same completely craven opportunist that he was 10 years ago.
He is not worthy of support from principled Democrats.
MarkL:
Of course Edwards is a craven opportunist. Given.
If you would in some nightmare want to be President, don't you think most of us would consider you to be a craven opporunist. Of course we would.
The genie pops out of the bottle and says to you (a man or woman who cares about power and how it's exercised) "how'd you like to be President of the United States?" How do you answer?
I admit to lack of imagination, but as a voter I can't imagine a politician running for President that isn't an opportunist.
Posted by NealB at November 29, 2007 05:29 PMBTW check out Hunter's post at DailyKos
Posted by NealB at November 29, 2007 05:39 PMNealB,
I disagree with you.
Edwards has a record of not fulfilling his promises---in particular the very promises he made 10 years ago. There's just no reason at all to trust him. Hillary has mostly been the Senator she said she would be. Obama is actually more of a disappointment, because he has NOT been the strong anti-war voice many thought he was.
Another problem Eriposte exposes is that Edwards just isn't as smart as the other candidates. He has one shtick, and that's it. Even though the record shows he pandered shamelessly in 1998, then broke his promises, he's making the same promises today. Not smart.
Posted by MarkL at November 29, 2007 05:56 PMEdwards is THE ONLY ELECTABLE ONE (besides DODD, who has no money...)
Think about it. We are NOT going to have a "President Guiliani"..."President Obama"...or any other ethnic name.
Edwards scares the hell out of the Republicans and the Republican news media which hates to even mention him.
FORGET about his past votes...it's what he stands up for now that counts.
Posted by LizDexic at November 29, 2007 07:46 PMI have been supporting Edwards fora while now and I find the sniping here amusing-when you look at some of the really horrific things that the Clintons have done, along with the Republicans, the criticisma are, to quote Alberto Gonzales, "quaint"-Edwards can easily beat the Republicans and really has a grasp of what is wrong with America-the rest of the candidates are in denial-Edwards is the reason we are even discussing healthcare, poverty and a host of other issues-he has been setting the agenda and leading on issues for a while-some candidates have even adopted his work-it is a dead heat in Iowa despite the so obvious bias of the media against him-I think his support is quite remarkable when you see the attacks he has endured-I like where he wants to take the country and his vision of sweeping change-the Republican woman who named him as her candidate after the Republican debate was amazing- here we have a candidate that can get decent support from either side-I see a landslide win in his future when he is the nominee-I don't know why anyone would want to deal with the mess created by this fascist group we have, but I'm glad Edwards wants to try.
Posted by jeanruss at December 1, 2007 11:54 AM