Benny's World

Saturday, February 06, 2010

Sure Miss this Politician

http://www.democrats.org/a/2007/02/john_edwards_vi.php

(Flash 8.0 required)

He was right then. Too bad his personal life was different from the politician I wanted in the WH.

Those ideas, likely EE's too, are still on the backburner.

Labels: , , ,

Saturday, June 20, 2009

Bill Maher Channels John Edwards



The first part is New Rules and jokes.

2:00 minutes in is the rant opinion piece that many of us would agree with. I think of my friend, Montana Maven, when I watch this.

He calls Democrats in Congress the New Republicans, and the current Republicans are the party of crazies. Except for one idea (about legalizing marijuana), all of the things that most Democratic party constituents want were the ones JRE proposed.

It occurs to me that the Democratic Party may be like the GOP in the sense that we have entertainers or the fallen politicians being our mouthpiece instead of elected officials. Dennis K of course, with exception.

Update: I just saw this AMA Commercial by Maher.



Yep, ain't it the truth.

Labels: , , , , ,

Tuesday, August 26, 2008

No Way, No How, No McCain

quote from Hillary Clinton's unity speech tonight.

Labels: , ,

Saturday, August 23, 2008

Will Progressives' "Happiness Be a Thing Called Joe"?

As the media stayed up most of the night to get a simple text message from Barack Obama's campaign about his VP candidate, I never doubted it would be anyone else (well, I take that back, I was concerned Chet Edwards was really being considered) but a guy named Joe Biden.

Joe Biden is a very down to earth politician who no doubt will tell Obama what he thinks. The good thing about Joe though is that he's experienced enough now that if Obama chooses not to accept his suggestions, Joe can roll with him.

Obama needed someone who could help his message connect to the lunchbuckets and to swing voters--Catholics-and Joe will work with Obama well in that regard. Note: Biden is one of the least wealthy senators. His wife is a teacher and a mental health advocate. Joe also has foreign policy credentials that actually put him on par with McCain, and McCain is going to have to figure out how to compete with Obama without competing with Joe Biden. That will be interesting.

Hopefully, the crowd in Springfield today will walk away with the feeling that "Happiness is a Thing Called Joe", which is a title of a real song. You can type in www.joebiden.com in the brower and get a redirect to a form from Barack Obama's site to welcome Joe Biden to the team. (That's probably why Obama waited so late to announce--they had to get the technical stuff ready--in addition to ramping up more publicity for the campaign.)

Otherwise, here's Audra McDonald's rendition of Harold Arlen's memorable song from the musical, Cabin in the Sky. Harold Arlen also wrote my very favorite song, "Somewhere Over the Rainbow", something we all could use after a disasterous 8 years under the Bush administration.



Welcome Joe Biden.

Update: Ezra has a good piece about why Biden would be a good choice for the ticket and the American people.

Labels: , , , , , ,

Saturday, August 02, 2008

DNC Convention More Wired and Wireless

Here's a great video message by Aaron Myers, Director of Internet Communications for the Democratic National Committee and the Convention in Denver.



Promises to be very exciting. More than 4 times as many bloggers credentialed this year.

Labels: , , ,

Sunday, June 01, 2008

Where in the World is John Edwards?

I happen to know, via a British blogger. John and Elizabeth are in London! And they are doing a fundraiser tomorrow for overseas Dems.

Oh, and when we went to pick her up today at Heathrow, we saw John and Elizabeth Edwards. I was wandering around Arrivals, when my husband came running up. "It's John Edwards!" he told me excitedly. "And Elizabeth!" I was just in time to see them getting onto an elevator. I'd heard they were coming to town for a fundraiser. Gee, if they'd let me know I coulda picked them up.


Read the rest at What Do I Know's blog.

Labels: , , ,

Monday, March 24, 2008

Tracy Russo at Take Back America Last Week


And others..including one of my other favs, Chris Bowers, and Digby.

Here...

Labels: , , ,

Saturday, February 23, 2008

More Thoughts about JRE's Sudden Departure from the Race

Machka at Southern Hope offers an interesting analysis that many supporters tend to agree with, with a little more evidence to support her claim.

Labels: , , , ,

Wednesday, February 06, 2008

John Edwards to Be Excluded from Ballot in NC

According to the News-Observer, State Dem Party chairman Jerry Meek did not list John Edwards as a presidential candidate. I don't know how accurate the quote is, but this is what Rob Christensen reported:

"Meek said he based his decision on the law, which says the ballot should include "all candidates whose candidacy is generally advocated and recognized in the news media throughout the United States or in North Carolina."


So Edwards, who has been on many local stations, and only suspended his campaign, is being kicked off the ballot?

Does anyone believe that essentially Mike Gravel is generally advocated and recognized throughout the news media or in NC more than John Edwards? Meh.

I don't live in North Carolina, but to me, this smells of petty politics.

Seems to me Tarheel Dems, and yes, I'm talking not only to the regulars on this blog, but also to Larry Kissell, Rep. Brad Miller, Rep. Heath Schuler, Rep. Mel Watts, and new candidates such as Harry Taylor need to urge Chairman Meek to put Edwards back on the ballot. Tarheels deserve the opportunity to vote for its native son.

Meeks' contact info:

Jerry Meek
Chair
919-821-2777 Ext. 106
email: jmeek@ncdemocraticparty.org

cross-posted from BlueNC

Labels: , , , ,

Saturday, February 02, 2008

Quote by Kelly in Ohio about JRE's Exit


I just saw this at JRE's blog. It's a very succinct quote that describes many of us. Kelly in Ohio posted this at CNN's site.

"It's strange to realize how little the general public understands about Edwards supporters. As someone said in a recent article, 'People who love John Edwards really love him.' Many of us are still voting for him. From our point of view, all the other candidates are very, very far from him in spirit, in approach, in policy priorities, and in reliability. From our point of view, neither Clinton nor Obama are 'almost as good' as Edwards. From our point of view, we had one candidate who was going to be the advocate of the people, and many who are not. Many of us who identify as progressives don't have a 'second choice'. On top of that, folks don't seem to realize how many Republicans were going to vote for Edwards, who are now going back to the Republican side. Edwards appealed to conventionally 'red' areas-rural areas, small towns-due to both his economic agenda and his own rural, Christian roots. Now those people are lost to the Democratic party. And with our only publicly funded candidate out of the race, true democracy--rule by the people--remains lost to the country.

"In other words: No, Edwards' supporters are not 'up for grabs' by the other Democratic candidates. Instead, we are simply alienated from the Democratic party. And just as Republicans have a hard time winning without considering religious conservatives, Democrats are going to continue to have a hard time winning as long as they continue to alienate the progressive wing of the party."

Labels: , ,

Sunday, December 16, 2007

An Essay on Krugman's The Conscience of a Liberal by Montana Maven

BW readers, I have a great treat for you. Montana Maven (whose blog is on my blogroll) wrote an exquisite essay that would rival anything one would read in the NYT Books section. It incorporates a theme about getting the gentry out of the government and restoring it back to the people, using Paul Krugman's new book, The Conscience of Liberal as a theme. The essay was originally diaried on the Daily Kos earlier today. It was so well received that I e-mailed Montana Maven to obtain permission to reproduce it here, and she responded very enthusiastically a "Yes".

Readers will see how this ties to JRE's message. Oh, in case you didn't know, Krugman has complemented JRE quite a few times this year, particularly about his universal health care plan. Additionally, Montana Maven said that on her radio show yesterday out of Des Moines, quite a few Ron Paul supporters called in. They think the system is rigged against us, but of course they prefer less government in general.

So, here is her essay, with the proper title below. Enjoy. Special thanks to Montana Maven for allowing Benny's World to reprint this excellent piece. Do drop by her blog and listen to her podcasts of her radio show. She has the most interesting guests to interview. And if you like her work, drop her a note with some change.

Krugman Asks Us to Fight for a New New Deal and Not Betray Progressivism

by Montana Maven

That’s what is behind Krugman and his recent columns. Democracy has been shoved aside, but he sees our chance out of this radical inequality we find ourselves in. But is must be done NOW. It is urgent that we elect the person most capable of taking on FDR’s mantle and fighting like heck for universal heath care. It’s not as radical as some lefties would like. It still is working within the capitalist system. But it will lead us from the brink. His book "The Conscience of a Liberal" is an ode to the New Deal and he makes a strong case for a New New Deal.

"Your Future Still Lies Ahead of You" declared Thomas Dewey in his campaign against Harry Truman. And so it goes in every election. Barfy populist statements. Meaningless platitudes escape from the lips of grown men and the occasional woman. They mostly used to come from the Republican side to mask the real agenda. I call it Smiley Face Fascism delivered by affable politicians.

In 1948, Dewey masked his assault on the New Deal with generalizations like the one quoted. But just as Senator Howard Taft had attacked the labor reforms of the New Deal with the Taft Hartley Act, Dewey’s agenda was to reverse the programs of the New Deal like social security and worker’s rights. He was appealing to Americans to return to the oligarchic system in place prior to Roosevelt.

Well the people wanted none of it and elected Truman. After Dewey's defeat, for the most part, the Republicans gave up trying to undo The New Deal. Their ideas were literally bankrupt. In 1954, Eisenhower, in a letter to his brother Edgar, said that "a tiny splinter group...H.L. Hunt...a few other Texas oil millionaires, and an occasional politician or business man from other areas" wanted to eliminate labor laws and farms programs." "Their numbers are negligible and they are stupid".

But 30 years later, the "tiny splinter group" came back with a vengeance and "The Great Compression" that resulted from Roosevelt’s policies to counter "The Great Depression" took a backward turn that continues today. The modern conservatives built a movement, media outlets, organizations, around the ideas of economist Milton Friedman and sociologist, Irving Kristol. When the next crisis hit, their ideas would be ready. Naomi Klein whole book "The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism" is about how these folks would exploit crisis after crisis swooping in with their radical fundamental free market ideas.

Krugman’s new book is not as shocking or as filled with personal interviews as Naomi Klein’s, but it is a very smart, succinct, and smart companion piece to it. It's also a personal story and a personal journey of Krugman's that I understand being the same age and growing up in the 1950's and the 1960's. Klein was trained as an economist but she has found her gift in journalism. Her book is filled with brilliant reportage; of personal accounts of the tragedies inflicted by the Milton Friedman "greed is good" school. Like Klein, Krugman’s writing in his economic column morphed from an attack on George W. Bush and his administration to the conservative movement as a whole. He couldn’t help it. He became a gadfly who has changed in the way he looks at the "why" of where we are today. Why are we in another Gilded Age when it looked like we were heading towards greater equality not less? The Friedman (Miltie and Tommie) mantra has been globalization, globalization, globalization.

But Krugman, as he examined the period from Gilded to Gilded, sees two arcs; one in economics and one in politics and they parallel each other. The greatest inequality of incomes in the Gilded Age was mirrored by extreme partisanship. In the 1950’s, post war America, there was the greatest income equality and the greatest bi-partisanship. His book is an examination of the "why?" of these arcs. It is an ode to The New Deal and its reforms.

To his credit, Krugman said that he believed the story that:

"technological changes and globalization caused America’s income distribution to become increasingly unequal, with an elite minority pulling away from the rest of the population. The Republican Party chose to cater to the interests of that rising elite... And so a gap opened between the parties, with the Republicans becoming the part of the winners...the Democrats represented those left behind."

But in his research he became more and more convinced that the arrow pointed in the other direction; not from economic inequality causing a growing political rift, but a radical political shift caused the economic inequality. This idea is heresy to traditional economists who believe that the invisible hand of the market mattered most in how income is distributed.

And more and more economists are starting to take another look at the shenanigans of the political right and neo-liberal crookedness disguised as theory. Krugman posits:

"Forces of technological change and globalization...affect everyone. If the rise in inequality has political roots, the United States should stand out; if it’s mainly due to impersonal market forces, trends in inequality should have been similar across the advanced world. And the fact is that the increase in U.S. inequality has no counterpart anywhere else in the advanced world.

Political change seems to be at the heart of the story. How did that political change happen?"

Krugman unearths the same culprit as Klein does; the modern radical conservative movement, but by going back an examining The New Deal, he puts our salvation clearly in a New New Deal that puts first and foremost as it’s number one agenda, universal health care "something every other advanced country already has." And in order to make his case he examines our politics from the Gilded Age of the 1890’s to the Gilded Age of the last 30 years. In the telling of the tale, he hopes that we will not repeat the mistakes of the past, but embrace the great radical reforms that Roosevelt instituted that led to our finest hours.

And here's where the "Bourbon Democrats" come in. From the civil war to Woodrow Wilson, the Democrats were primarily led by pro-business Northerners and reactionary Southerners. They differed in being pro free trade and anti-tariff and they decried corruption. The Republican Party was clearly the party of the rich and no longer the party of free labor. So who got left out? Labor and farmers. Hence the rise of the Populists. But their chosen leader, William Jennings Bryan, could never create a coalition of labor and farm; of urban and rural workers. He also got hung up with silver and gold standards and being awfully preachy. And one of his worst mistakes was to pick a Northern pro-business running mate instead of the great Southern populist Tom Watson. So once again, the choice wasn't clear. When one side is mushy, the voters usually go for the strong clear "commander guy".

Today we have a version of the "Bourbon Democrats". Some call them the "Gentry Democrats". A great article in the Baltimore Sun "Worker's Aren't on the Agenda of Today's Gentry Liberals" is a great read.
http://www.baltimoresun.com/...

The ascent of gentry liberalism remains largely unchallenged, in part because of the abject failure of the Republicans to address middle-class aspirations in a serious way and in part because of the absence of a strong pro-middle-class voice among Democratic presidential contenders, with the exception of former Sen. John Edwards. As a result, Democrats are unlikely to stop, let alone reverse, the current economic trend that dispenses major benefits to gentry-favored sectors such as private equity firms, dot-com giants and entertainment media.

Over the last half-century, liberals have moved from strong support for basic middle-class concerns - epitomized by the New Deal and the GI Bill - to policies that reflect the concerns and prejudices of ever-more-elite interests. As a result, neither party speaks for broad middle-class concerns.

The nation deserves better than that.

Yes, our future still lies ahead of us if we put away hollow pseudo progressivism that worships power and loves the world of corporate jets and perks. We must put away those childish things and go for the substantial. And that lies in embracing labor once again and putting its needs first. By putting money into the hands of the poorest workers, everybody gains in income except the top 1 %. Bummer. But that’s what happened from the 1930’s to the 1970’s. Good strong labor unions (fraternity) and fair progressive taxes (equality). That gave everybody freedom (liberty) and restored the American dream.

In 1936, Franklin Delano Roosevelt did not pussy foot around with barfy populist statements. He "let the malefactors of great wealth have it with both barrels", says Krugman:

We had to struggle with the old enemies of peace, business and financial monopoly, speculation, reckless banking, class antagonism, sectionalism, war profiteering.

They had begun to consider the Government of the United States as a mere appendage to their own affairs. We know now that Government by organized money is just as dangerous as Government by organized mob.

Never before in all our history have these forces been so united against one candidate as they stand today. They are unanimous in their hate for me⎯and I welcome their hatred.

You cannot sleep with these forces. You cannot cajole them. The only way we will get back to more political bi-partisanship is to fix inequality of income and inequality of health care and inequality of opportunity and restore democracy. Not the other way around. You cannot rise above or transcend the fierce bickering. You must fight the causes of it. There is no Staples EASY button to right these wrong that involve race, poverty, class and the rift between town and country. The progressive/liberal/labor movement has been growing getting stronger. The old Jesse Jackson Rainbow Coalition is being reborn with the new resurgence o the unions and our Latino and Latina allies. It is a new coalition that has strength and power and not just intellectual exercises.

Naomi Klein said that when a crisis hits, Milton Friedman says that government will turn to the "ideas lying around." In the 1990’s there was no visible progressive movement. Bill Clinton did not come in to office on a wave of a movement. He got lucky. Then he wasn’t sure what to do, so he winged it.

This accounted for part of the reason why health care reform didn’t happen. Krugman says that there were many reasons why Hillary and Bill’s health care plan didn’t work:

"but a key weakness was that it wasn’t an attempt to give substance to the goals of a broad movement⎯it was a personal venture, developed in isolation and without a supporting coalition. And after the Republican victory in 1994, Bill Clinton was reduced to making marginal policy changes. He ran the government well, but he didn’t advance a larger agenda, and he didn’t build a movement. This could happen again, but if it does, progressives will rightly feel betrayed."

Well, we have a movement, thank goodness. We don’t have time to wait for somebody to begin to build one. Besides a movement is really never built by following a person. That’s a cult. To return to traditional liberalism will take a radical turn. (And John McLaughlin, of all people, noted several months ago that is what the country needed right now.)

It will take courage. It will take being a partisan; a defender of liberty, equality, and fraternity. Just like the Free French Partisans, we must fight entrenched greed not collaborate with them. By becoming fiercely partisan, fighting for equality and justice, we can finally regain such a thing as bi-partisanship aka working through our differences towards the common good. John Edwards said in a town hall meeting in Iowa on December 12, "We have an epic battle ahead of us."

Krugman in his final chapter defines liberals and progressives:

"To be a liberal is in a sense to be a conservative. It means, to a large extent, wanting us to go back to being a middle class society. To be progressive, however, clearly implies wanting to move forward...Advancing the traditional goals of liberalism requires new policies."

The Democratic Primary has seen a great many ideas surface while on the other side they are trying to see who can expand Gitmo and who can up the ante on our next war. But still there will be "fierce opposition" to the reforms the people want. So Krugman leaves us with this admonition:

"For now being an active liberal means being a progressive, and being a progressive means being partisan. But the end goal isn’t one-party rule. It’s the reestablishment of a truly vital, competitive, democracy. Because in the end, democracy is what being a liberal is all about. "

But we need a clear choice. Aristocrats and democrats, Jefferson said, are the divide in a nation. It is time for liberals in the name of liberty, equality and fraternity to take back the Republic from the gentry Democrats and the Radical Republicans.

Labels: , , , , ,

Wednesday, October 31, 2007

JRE Buzz Special Edition: The Son of a Millworker Takes on the Madam of Special Interests: Clinton

Critics lauded JRE and are falling over themselves about his performance at last night's debate. Here's a sampling:

TIME’s Mark Halperin Gave Edwards’ Debate Performance an “A”; Edwards “Came Across As Presidential, Optimistic and Patriotic — Essential for a Winner.” “Impressively he remained above the Clinton-Obama fray (no "look at me" antics) but swept in to best them while the media waited for the pair to duke it out. Calm and cool, he went after Clinton on (let's face it) character, and only occasionally seemed to be trying too hard. Hit both his Democratic and Republican targets with acute precision and impact. Appeared tough enough to perform well in a general election, with the kind of articulate passion he formerly demonstrated in the courtroom. Came across as presidential, optimistic and patriotic - essential for a winner.”

David Yepsen: “John Edwards Emerged As the Evening’s Most Effective and Articulate Challenger to Clinton.” In a blog post titled, “Johnny Be Good,” Yepsen wrote, “John Edwards emerged as the evening’s most effective and articulate challenger to Clinton. She turned in an uneven, sometimes waffling performance…Edwards came ready for the scrap and he helped his candidacy.” [Des Moines Register, 10/30/07]

New York Times: Obama “Was Frequently Overshadowed by Former Senator John Edwards.” “But for all the attention Mr. Obama drew to himself coming into the debate, he was frequently overshadowed by former Senator John Edwards of North Carolina, who — speaking more intensely and frequently — repeatedly challenged Mrs. Clinton’s credentials and credibility. ‘Senator Clinton says that she believes she can be the candidate for change, but she defends a broken system that’s corrupt in Washington, D.C.,’ Mr. Edwards said. ‘She says she will end the war, but she continues to say she’ll keep combat troops in Iraq and continue combat missions in Iraq. To me, that’s not ending the war; that’s the continuation of the war.’ He added, ‘I think the American people, given this historic moment in our country’s history, deserve a president of the United States that they know will tell them the truth, and won’t say one thing one time and something different at a different time.’” [New York Times, 10/31/07]

ABC’s George Stephanopoulos: “I Think It Was a Good Night for John Edwards. I Think One of His Best Nights of These Debates So Far.” George Stephanopoulos: “I think it was a good night for John Edwards. I think one of his best nights of these debates so far. He was very, very clear. He didn’t back down at all. He knew exactly what he wanted to say about Hillary Clinton, again, that she can’t bring about change.” [ABC, “Good Morning America,” 10/31/07]

CQ’s Craig Crawford: “I Thought It Was Edwards’ Best Performance So Far.” On MSNBC: Chris Matthews: “Who was ready to be her number one challenger between now and January?”… Craig Crawford: “I thought it was Edwards’ best performance so far.” Crawford later wrote, ““John Edwards was truly passionate about taking on Clinton, targeting her centrist views as ‘doubletalk’ and accusing her of falling in line with hawkish ‘neo-conservatives’ on Iran. Indeed, it was the former North Carolina senator’s most forceful debate performance so far.” [MSNBC, 10/30/07; 10/31/07]

The Nation’s Ari Melber: “John Edwards Had the Strongest Showing.” “John Edwards had the strongest showing, pounding Clinton as the status quo candidate. ‘If you believe that combat missions should be continued in Iraq [with no timetable],’ he said, ‘then Senator Clinton is your candidate.’ Edwards repeatedly presented himself as the most credible ‘change’ candidate.” [ “Edwards & Obama Confront Clinton In Dem Debate...” 10/30/07]

Daily Kos Readers Declared Edwards the Winner. According to the Daily Kos poll following the debate, “Who do you think won the debate,” John Edwards led the pack with 33% of the 8,588 votes cast, followed by Obama at 21%, and Clinton at 16%.

CBS’s Jeff Greenfield: “It Was Former Senator John Edwards Who Used the Toughest Language” On Iran. “But it was former Senator John Edwards who used the toughest language, at one point reacting with incredulity to her claim that a vote to brand the Iranian Revolutionary Guard as terrorists was a way of opposing the president.” [“The Early Show,” CBS, 10/31/07]

The Nation’s John Nichols (first reaction): Edwards “Ended the Night as the Candidate Who Had Done the Best Job of Defining Himself as the Alternative to Hillary Clinton.” “It wasn't just a fight about Iran, however. Edwards hit hard, and effectively, on every front. After detailing the front-runner's contributions from defense contractors and other corporate interests, he said. ‘If people want the status quo, Senator Clinton's your candidate.’ That's tough talk. Blunt talk. The sort of talk that Barack Obama seemed to suggest that he was going to deliver Tuesday night. But it came from John Edwards, who ended the night as the candidate who had done the best job of defining himself as the alternative to Hillary Clinton.” [h, 10/30/07]

Then Nichols added this later: “Edwards, Not Obama, Hits Clinton Hardest, Smartest.” “It was supposed to be the night Barack Obama took Hillary Clinton down. But, when all was said and done, Obama was a bystander…Where Obama was unfocused and ineffectual, John Edwards landed plenty of blows. The former senator from North Carolina began by suggesting that ‘it's fair’ to talk about essential differences between the candidates. Then he highlighted a big one. ‘(Clinton) says she'll stand up to George Bush,’ argued Edwards. "In fact, she voted to give George W. Bush the first step to war on Iran...’… It was a smart, at times intense dialogue…But Edwards owned the moment. Accusing Clinton of voting for an Iran resolution that read like it was ‘written literally by the neo-cons,’ the 2004 vice presidential nominee declared, ‘We need to stand up to this president. We need to make it absolutely clear that we will not let Bush, Cheney and this administration invade Iran.’”

NBC’s Tim Russert: “Edwards Was More Aggressive, More on the Offense than Barack Obama.”
Meredith Viera: “So did Edwards emerge?” Tim Russert: “I think Edwards emerged as the most aggressive candidate against Hillary Clinton…But clearly, looking at their performance last night, Edwards was more aggressive, more on the offense than Barack Obama.” [NBC’s “Today Show,” 10/31/07]

Marc Ambinder: “John Edwards’s Instruments of Persuasion Were Sharper and Louder.” “In this discordant symphony – ‘A Clintonian Lament’ -- John Edwards’s instruments of persuasion were sharper and louder; Barack Obama’s were more resonant and more subtle. In music terms, Edwards played the French horn; Obama played the violin. Or, as the New Yorker’s Ryan Lizza told me during a commercial break, ‘It’s the difference between someone who goes to law school and becomes a prosecutor and someone who goes to law school and becomes a law professor.’” [, 10/30/07]


ABC’s Rick Klein: “It's Rare That a Highlight Comes This Late in a Debate, But Edwards Picks up on That Inconsistency On Immigration.” “10:56 pm ET: It's rare that a highlight comes this late in a debate, but Edwards picks up on that inconsistency on immigration: ‘Sen. Clinton said two different things in the course of about two minutes.’ Obama: ‘I was confused on Sen. Clinton's answer.’ And Obama calls the Spitzer plan ‘the right idea.’”[ 10/30/07]

Then added Klein: “Edwards Still Seems Better, Though, at Finding Compelling Ways to Set Himself Apart.” “11:05 pm ET: Rick Klein wrapping it up -- Hillary Clinton gave a truly bad answer at the end, on illegal immigration, one that feeds the argument Obama and Edwards were making all night. Did Obama clear the bar he set for himself? Probably yes, but not with much room to spare. Edwards still seems better, though, at finding compelling ways to set himself apart. ” [10/30/07]

NBC's Domenico Montanaro: “Clinton Blurring the Lines AGAIN, Now on Illegal Immigrant Driver's Licenses… Edwards Called Her on It.” “Is Clinton blurring the lines AGAIN, now on illegal immigrant driver's licenses. She said the plan makes sense, but can't commit apparently. She said she didn't say she supports the plan, when Dodd said she did. Russert tried to pin her on it, and she obfuscated again. Edwards called her on it, evoking Bush-Cheney, saying Americans were tired of ‘double talk.’ Obama nodded and got called on and he got to chime in as well. Does this become a problem for her? Can she directly answer a question?” [ “Clinton having it both ways... again?” 10/30/07]

The Politico’s Ben Smith: “John Edwards Kept Up the Pressure Most Skillfully on Clinton… Drove His Point Home When She Refused to Say Whether She Supports” Spitzer’s Plan. “John Edwards kept up the pressure most skillfully on Clinton, putting his courtroom skills to use to build a case, at times mockingly, against the New York senator … Edwards drove his point home when she refused to say whether she supports New York Gov. Eliot Spitzer’s plan to give drivers’ licenses to illegal immigrants.” [, 10/31/07]

CNN’s Candy Crowley: Edwards “Stepped Up His Game.” Appearing on CNN’s Anderson Cooper 360, Candy Crowley said, “John Edwards, who has never been shy about going after the frontrunner, stepped up his game, questioning her candor.” [CNN’s “Anderson Cooper 360,” 10/30/07]

CQ’s Craig Crawford: “I thought Edwards made a good point when he said Republicans talk about you so much, because they want to run against you.” [MSNBC, 10/31/07]

Update: MJ Rosenberg at TPM declares Edwards Won.
"But, of the three heavyweights, I was most impressed by Edwards. He combined toughness and vision. Somehow I can imagine that Edwards' agenda for America would have a name like "New Deal" or "Great Society" in other words a rubric that suggests that his program for America would be larger than just his persona. I like that. I'm not so sure about the others.

I think Edwards will win Iowa and then we'll have a real race, one with an almost level playing field. It is not over. That is the main thing I learned last night.

Not over by a long shot."


I'm happy to hear the praise of the critics, but it's very clear none of them believed him when he said he has taken on the big interests before in the court rooms, and beat them at their game.

Madame Clinton, you, along the Re-thugs, represent those big interests and the double talk from the 1990's.

I would not underestimate the one who is the most authentic and will bring about positive change for our country: John Edwards. He's the son of a millworker.

Labels: , , , , , , , , ,

John Edwards: This is about the Future

From the debate last night:



Joe Trippi says that was his favorite moment. It was one of mine too.

Other post debate thoughts: Paul Bevan,,It's a Matter of Trust

But it was Edwards who reached out last night to try and grab the mantle as the candidate Democrats can trust - and he seemed to do it somewhat effectively. The reason the "trustworthiness" charge is so potentially potent is because it dovetails with - or cuts against, depending on your perspective - the argument for real change, which is what Democrats (and Republicans, for that matter) are yearning for this year.

Edwards' accusation is that Hillary is an entrenched part of a corrupt and broken system, and that you simply cannot trust her when she says she's an agent of change. That is a powerful message that probably rings true to many Democrats and arouses deep-seated suspicions about her. Furthermore, it makes her slogan - You can't have change without the "experience and leadership" - seem like another example of hollow Clintonian parsing and triangulation.


David Greene, Democratic Presidential Debate Targets Clinton

Her rivals, however, did not let up. Senator Chris Dodd of Connecticut went after Clinton for voting in favor of an anti-Iran resolution favored by the Bush administration.

"I believe that this issue is going to come back to haunt us," Dodd said. "We all learned, some of us here painfully back in 2002, that by voting for an authorization regarding Iraq, that despite the language of that resolution, which called for diplomacy at the time, this administration used that resolution, obviously, to pursue a very aggressive action in Iraq."

Edwards jumped on the same vote, suggesting that if the president were to invade Iran, Clinton may offer the same explanation she gave for authorizing force in Iraq.

"Are we going to hear, 'If I only I had known then what I know now?'" he asked.


I will say this, Timmeh asked Dennis a dumb question about UFO's. He handled it well considering he knew it was designed to make him appear as though he wore a tin foil hat.

Interesting debate..still rewatching all of the video clips. You can find them here.

Labels: , , , ,

Saturday, October 06, 2007

Hard Out There Petitioning for Dems in A Red District


This is another report about field activities from a volunteer's eyes in IL-15. This is about obtaining signatures for petitions to put candidates on the state ballot.




On Wednesday, I received a note from John Edwards' Midwest OneCorps coordinator that our Champaign-Urbana group would be soliciting petitions in order to properly put John Edwards on the ballot for the Illinois Democratic primary. My understanding is that this is common practice and all candidates, regardless of party, must have the legal number of signatures. Since I'm new to doing real grassroots work, I did ask how many signatures were needed. No one I asked was totally clear about it, but the goal was to get as many as possible.

Today was Dad's Day at the University of Illinois, and the Illini were playing a home game against the number 5 ranked team in the nation, Wisconsin. Big 10 game. OneCorps was meeting in Champaign near Assembly Hall between 8 and 9 this morning, and as I live only 2.5 miles from it, I chose to ride my comfort bike and meet the folks there.



It was the best method of transportation since parking was already beginning to become a premium with big tail gating parties and kickoff was scheduled for a little past 11am.

There were only a handful of us as our OneCorps chapter is very small.

But here's a picture of getting a clipboard with the petitions attached from one of our leaders.

We took our clipboards, and set forth to do some canvassing amongst the big crowds in the nearby parking areas. We were forewarned it would be a tough crowd.

The crowd was full of Red Shirters for Wisconsin and Orange Crush for the Illini. While it was exciting to see such enthusiasm for the football teams, it was clear that either the crowd goers (a) weren't interested in signing petitions or (b) were not registered voters who wanted to get a Democratic candidate on the ballot. My cohorts and I tried to stay within the same area, and they fared better than I did in getting some signatures. Both said they had better luck with women.

Moi? I got zippy-do-dah, and I believed I could obtain more fruitful results at the Urbana Farmer's/Free Market, where the crowd goers are more friendly to Democrats. My team concurred. I left them at the pre-game activities.

I returned to get my bike, kept secure in a vehicle, and the the round-up leader who had it still was around and got it out of the car, ready for me. She had found tickets for any of us who wished to get signatures, and I had one of them. However, I returned the ticket as I knew someone else could enjoy the game better. I wanted instead to stay on task for my candidate. As I told the One Corps leader, I relish a good game of college football, but I wanted to get the job done. She seemed appreciative and wished me luck getting around via bicycle the growing, snarling traffic of game attendees.

It took me almost twice as long to get home because of the traffic and waiting. I took a little time to cool off in my AC'd home as it was already 85 degrees after my arrival. I got to the Urbana Farmer's/FreeMarket by 10:30, later than I expected, but still I made it. The market was not quite as full because of the game, but we had plenty of hard core Dems passing by, and oddly Ron Paul supporters near the space. I'm supplying a pic to give readers a lens of what the farmer's/free market looks like.



I also got to say hello and chat with Tony Fabri, who is the appointed current County Auditor, but running for the election next year, and he is our County Dem chair. He remembered my name, which impressed me since I see him only a few times a year. He's a busy person.

The person of the day was Kai. She got quite a few to register to vote in our County. Of
those, many were students and new to our area. She also reminded other folks if they changed addresses, to re-register as well. Kai is the gal on the right in the picture below.



And in the end, the Illini beat Wisconsin 31-26. Good for the Illini. Not certain how the rest of my OneCorps group did, but I'm betting they were better than I was.

In the end I obtained 13 signatures for my candidate. I'll do better next week.

Labels: , , ,

Friday, August 24, 2007

John Edwards: Time to End the Game



Please watch the video. Later this evening, I will be adding more thoughts (longer response), something I haven't done in some time, about why this video resonates with me.

Meantime, you can read some other good pieces by Neil at Ezra Klein, Matt Yglesias at The Atlantic, Todd Beeton at MyDD, and Stirling Newberry at The Agonist and get their take on the full speech.

Oliver Willis and Taylor Marsh have definite opinions too, in which both take an angle that Edwards blasts the Democrats too much, and perhaps Edwards is not going to get out of third place in the national polls with such a speech. One of them believes Edwards borrowed a play out of the wingnut playbook. I don't think so as I've been following Edwards for quite some time, but each good blogger is entitled to her/his opinion.

Do feel free to add to the discussion. Will write more l8tr, but in general, this is about We the People.

Labels: , , , ,

Tuesday, June 19, 2007

Here She Is: Digby


From the Take Back America conference, courtesy of Google video and found first on Firedoglake.

Boy, does Digby say a lot in 13 minutes! She punches the center and the right. Yes, there is a "dig" at Mudcat Saunders about his comment that the bloggers are elitists like the Metropolitan Opera, but overall, I agree with her. If you don't have time to watch the entire acceptance speech (the Paul Wellstone award for Progressive bloggers), here's Isaiah Poole's quick interview of her.

For more coverage, go to Oliver Willis who will give you links where to turn to for the latest at the Take Back America conference. I have his site linked on my blogroll.

Thanks, Digby, even if you aren't a big JRE fan, but you do speak for a lot of us bloggers.

Quick update: You see Ned Lamont's pic right away. FDL reports Ned introduced her.

Here's the transcript, courtesy of Sinfonian:

Thank you very much, Ned. That is overwhelming. I hope you’ll bear with me here. I’m not accustomed to public speaking. I write pseudonymously.

Those of you who know my blog know that it’s nearly impossible to draw me from my secure bunker in the People’s Republic of Santa Monica. But when I was approached by my friend Rick Pearlstein about accepting this award on behalf of the progressive blogosphere, I knew it was an honor that I could not refuse. Not for myself, although I’m grateful, but for my fellow bloggers.

We are proud to be part of the great progressive, liberal tradition of Paul Wellstone, and we are grateful for your kind acknowledgment. Thank you.

As there has been a lot said recently about the netroots and our influence on the Democratic Party, this is especially rewarding. Let’s just say we’ve ruffled some feathers. We’ve been called everything from “some guy named Vinnie in a bathrobe in an efficiency apartment” to “blogofascists.” Some critics dismiss us as useless elites, the “Metropolitan Opera crowd,” or a noisy Upper West Side cocktail party for the college graduate class. Still others take us to task for our vitriolic, unhinged tone.

The other day, Tim Russert agreed absolutely with his gracious host, the concerned centrist Sean Hannity, that the Democratic Party was being unduly influenced by bloggers, who were dragging the Party kicking and screaming to the Left. Then there is the criticism that we are fascists or Stalinists, demanding that everyone march in lockstep to the edicts of our leadership – generally assumed to be Markos, of Daily Kos, who apparently directs us with secret signals deeply embedded in the code of the Daily Kos website, while we carry on an elaborate ruse of spirited political debate and disagreement in public. We are, in short, something of an enigma. I like to call this phenomenon “Irrational Fear of Hippies.” And this has, in my view, become irrational fear of political passion.

Of all the criticisms I just mentioned, that is one that we are all willing to accept. We are passionate about politics, and in this era of Republican corruption, excess, and failure, that passion sometimes manifests itself as anger. But how can you not be angry? So many institutions have failed us in the last decade that being vitriolic seems the only sane response.

And as for the idea that we are modern Stalinists, does that make any sense at all? We can’t even agree about what to call ourselves. The netroots – the progressive blogosphere – consists of a very lively and disparate group of citizens who are political observers, activists, readers, writers, entrepreneurs, communicating and organizing via the Internet. We have opera-loving liberals from Georgia, NASCAR-loving progressives from Chicago, and Grateful Dead-loving Democrats from Florida. We are from everywhere, and our common tribal signifiers aren’t social status or professional authority or region. We find each other in remote places and big cities alike, on the Internet, through our politics – period. In the blogosphere, nobody cares if you are a 70-year-old Chinese immigrant, or a 22-year-old Harvard student, or a stay-at-home blogger dad. If you have something to say, you can say it, and if it touches a chord, people will return time and again to read what you’ve written and discuss the issues of the day with others who are reading the same things.

Al Gore – a man who knows something about the Internet – wrote in his book, The Assault on Reason, “The Internet is perhaps the greatest source of hope for reestablishing an open communications environment in which the conversation of democracy can flourish. It is the most interactive medium in history, with the greatest potential for connecting individuals to one another and to the universe of knowledge.” So while we may not be Stalinists, the Netroots is a revolution – a revolutionary, participatory democracy.

And for that purpose, the Left is more effective than the Right. Whether by temperament or philosophy, we are simply better suited to the freeform, constantly changing nature of these new political communities. Each of us finds our niche: I’m a blogger-pundit, a role for which I am eminently qualified since, exactly like pundits on television and in newspapers, I have opinions, I write them down, and a lot of people read them. Yes, that’s all there is to it. Sorry, Mr. Broder. Others have different endeavors. Bloggers Matt Stoller and Chris Bowers, for instance, are organizers of this nascent movement. They traffic in ideas that affect our ability to keep doing what we do, from net neutrality to finding a much-needed funding base for bloggers and activists. With vastly different approaches, Josh Marshall at Talking Points Memo and Jane Hamsher of Firedoglake are creating a new form of journalism; Talking Points is modeled on the more traditional form, and Firedoglake is mixing reporting, opinion, and direct political advocacy. Daily Kos is a virtual community that operates like a small city, offering full-stop political shopping for its progressive inhabitants. Crooks and Liars catalogues the juiciest morsels of political TV. MoveOn moves millions to action. Media Matters monitors and calls out the right-wing noise machine. And writers for liberal magazines are all blogging and mixing it up with their readers. And there are literally thousands of others out there doing all that and more – writing back and forth with their readers, linking and arguing and organizing. This is a 24/7 worldwide political discussion and strategy session.

But all of us who blog in the progressive blogosphere have a common goal. It’s the same goal of virtually everyone in this room tonight. We want to begin a new era of progressive politics and take back America. We may argue about tactics and strategy, or the extent to which we are partisans versus ideologues (and believe me, we do), but there is no disagreement among us that the modern conservative movement of Newt and Grover and Karl and Rush has proven to be a dangerous cultural and political cancer on the body politic. You will not find anyone amongst us who believes that the Bush Administration’s executive power grab and flagrant partisan use of the federal government is anything less than an assault on the Constitution. We stand together against the dissolution of habeas corpus and the atrocities of Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo, and we all agree that Islamic terrorism is a threat, but one which we cannot meet with military power alone. And yes, a vast majority of us were against this mindless invasion of Iraq from the beginning, or at least saw the writing on the wall long before Peggy Noonan discovered that George W. Bush wasn’t the second coming of Winston Churchill.

Sadly, we also all agree that the mainstream media is part of the problem. Democracy suffers when not being held accountable by a vigorous press. During the last decade, there have been three catalyzing events that drove people like me to the Internet, to research, investigate, and write about assaults on democracy itself. In 1998, the political media lost all perspective, and aggressively helped the Republicans pursue a partisan witch-hunt against a democratically-elected president and against the will of the people. The coverage of the presidential election of 2000 was legendary for its bias and sophomoric personality journalism. The press actually joined the Republicans in telling the majority who had voted for Al Gore to get over it. I don’t know about you, but I never got over it. And the third event (I don’t need to tell anyone in this room) was the almost gleeful support of the invasion of Iraq, a journalistic failure of epic proportions. If you had not been sufficiently aroused from your complacency by this time, you never would be.

The blogosphere was the natural place for many of us to turn when the institutions we counted upon seemed to be daring us to believe them, or believe our own eyes. And that coming-together set the table for the seminal candidacy of Howard Dean and all that has come since.

As it turned out, we didn’t just raise money for progressive Democrats, although many of my fellow bloggers raised a whole big pile of it from our readers all over the country. We began to push back the prevailing manufactured narratives, produced in bulk by various Republican PR shops and distributed to their talking heads in radio and television. We talked back to the media, and yes, to our own party, some of whom understood that while we were opinionated thorns in their side, we were also opinion makers, read by influentials in the everyday world of water coolers and dinner tables all over the country. We were a part of the base that could move other parts of the base, and a counter to the prevailing political stories and narratives of the day. And they know we could potentially help create a new modern political movement.

And so here we are – the famously vituperative, angry bloggers, standing before you today politely accepting this award as proud, full-fledged inheritors of the great liberal and progressive political traditions of America. On behalf of all of them and netroots activists, and especially on behalf of our dear friend, Steve Gilliard, a fighting liberal of both the old the new schools, I thank you again for inviting us to your party. Our party rages on, 24/7, all over the blogosphere, and we’d love it if all of you would stop by frequently. Thank you.




Labels: , , , , , , , ,

Tuesday, May 22, 2007

Elizabeth Edwards Liveblogs Again

On the Daily Kos tonight.

Here was my post:

I had a colleague who is a Republican Say today that I had "good taste" in a candidate for the WH who tries to understand all kinds of issues in the financial and economic markets. He was impressed that JRE got to meet with Angela Merkel too.

Never know..indies could suade towards a John Edwards presidency. I see it.


Elizabeth's response:
Thanks, Benny05

Out there preaching to anyone who will listen. My type of woman!

And she knows my gender.

Impressed with this couple, over and over.

Labels: , , , ,

Sunday, May 20, 2007

John Edwards: Simply the Best

I love this new vlog by Refinish69, in which the song inspiration is Tina Turner's "The Best".

My favorite shot is after the music bridge, and it shows JRE in NH, smiling, upon his announcement to run, to the press.



Saw some new pics from NOLA today...



Wow...

Labels: , , , ,

Friday, May 18, 2007

JRE Buzz: Friday Morning Edition

Good morning BW readers! I haven't typed a buzz column in awhile, so I thought I would do one today. Guest anchoring for the Edwards Evening News at the Daily Kos inspired me to do this one and I will cross post some of what I wrote there.
(photo courtesy of Sirus)

This morning's buzz begins with the latest about Wolfie's Resignation from the World Bank and Edwards' response:

"It's about time. I called for Paul Wolfowitz's resignation a month ago when it became clear that his leadership was undermining America's ability to lead the fight against global poverty. Wolfowitz's tenure at the World Bank was marked by serious questions of financial integrity that alarmed our allies.


"Now, President Bush must choose a successor who will help restore America's credibility and moral leadership in the world. We need a leader who can convincingly make the case for global anti-poverty investments that can lift up billions of lives and make the world safer and more secure."


Edwards was the first to speak out about Wolfowitz. Not surprised that Edwards saw the problems of ethics and moral responsibility immediately, as Edwards traveled the globe for two years and heard stories about the US being ignored as a moral authority.


Raising Money for Southern Candidates, or the 50-State Strategy

Here's what Channel 11 in Atlanta reported:


The former North Carolina Senator and Vice-Presidential candidate was ushered into the event with the help of the Washington High School marching band, which electrified the crowd with their musical athleticism.

Former Georgia Governor Roy Barnes introduced Edwards to the cheering crowd as “the next President of the United States, John Edwards!"


Still raising money for other candidates, just as he did in 2006. It was estimated he raised $600K at the dinner yesterday for the party. What Attorney General Mark Taylor said is so true:


"It is a long, long, long campaign,” said former Lt. Governor Mark Taylor. “And again, it is going to be a campaign for the experienced campaigner, with the strongest organization and that's the strength Senator Edwards brings from ‘04."




Support the Troops, End the War on Radio


Edwards was a guest on Ed Schultz's show again. Here's the audio clip in case you missed it.


Edwards still pushed out his message "that we need to end this war". Notice though how Schultz saw the folly of Mike Huckabee's hit on JRE on the Debate two nights ago:



"..he's saying you are dam*ed good lookin' man.


JRE had to laugh at that one. Then they discussed how none of the Republican candidates and how that comment had to do with getting out of Iraq or what to do about health care."


Also, some good discussion about the escalation too, and how it's not working. Give it a listen.


Speaking of Supporting the Troops and Ending the War, did everyone get an e-mail from David Bonior today, in which the campaign received some personal responses about the patriotism we wish to show on Memorial Day? Tracy posted this on JRE's blog this evening:



In Raeford, North Carolina a woman whose husband is serving in Iraq is hosting a prayer vigil. She writes:


My husband is in Iraq, and I pray each and every day for the Troops and that maybe someday soon there will be an end to this war. Please join me in praying for my husband and all the troops that are deployed throughout the world.


In Milton, West Virginia, the mother of an Iraq War veteran is organizing a letter writing drive to Congress and the President.


And from Fort Riley, Kansas, a soldier writes simply:


As I get ready for my third tour into Iraq, I just want to say "BRING US HOME!"


You don't have to be a military family or a veteran to speak out now. You just have to be one of the millions of Americans who are done letting George Bush abuse the rhetoric of patriotism to defend policies that hurt our country and misuse our troops.


Real patriotism is about standing up to do what's right for our nation and the men and women who defend us. This Memorial Day weekend and beyond, let's wear our patriotism on our sleeve--and put it on our bumper--for all the world to see. Support the troops. End the war.


And remember--on Memorial Day itself (Monday the 28th)--let's all take time to solemnly honor all of those who have served in our armed forces and given their lives for our freedom.


http://ww.johnedwards.com/supportthetroopsendthewar


Edwards on Congress Not Standing Strong for our Citizens

Edwards had a few other things to say at the J-J Dinner last night too. Here are some snips from the Albany Herald:

Congressional Democrats aren’t using their newly-won power to stand up to President Bush and minority Republicans, Democratic presidential hopeful John Edwards said Thursday.

The 2004 candidate for vice president and former U.S. senator from North Carolina criticized his ex-colleagues in Congress for giving in too much to Republicans on both immigration reform and the war in Iraq.

“The Democratic leadership needs to show some strength and stand their ground,” said Edwards, who served as the keynote speaker Thursday night at the Georgia Democratic Party’s annual Jefferson-Jackson Dinner.

Illegal immigration was in the spotlight on Thursday, with Senate leaders announcing a bipartisan agreement with the White House on a comprehensive reform bill.

The deal would set up a way for illegal immigrants already in this country to live and work here and eventually obtain legal residency and citizenship.

But the first priority, under the proposal, would be improving border security, cracking down on employers who hire illegals and establishing a high-tech identification program to screen for undocumented workers.

Edwards said the agreement has the wrong emphasis.

“We have a responsibility to keep our borders secure,” he said.” (But) there needs to be a pathway to citizenship.”


On Ed Schultz's show, he believed that those who wish to live here need to fess up and pay a fine, plus learn English. I think that's fair.

Edwards Continues to Be a Leader in Social Networking Tools

From Freshnews.com



Eventful, Inc., the leading global events website, announced today that it is working with several presidential campaigns including John Edwards, Jim Gilmore, Barack Obama and Ron Paul, to help candidates reach potential voters across the United States. The campaigns are benefiting from Eventful Demand, a free online service that empowers supporters to lobby for political figures to come and speak in their local town. Using Eventful, the candidates are able to track where they are most in demand, schedule appearances based on this data and also communicate directly with the Demanders via email.

“Our goal is to connect with every American who shares our vision for change and get them directly involved with the campaign. Eventful.com helps us identify supporters who are looking to get engaged and make sure we reach out where it matters most,” said Ben Brandzel from the John Edwards Campaign. “Politics should be a two-way conversation, and we’re committed to making conversation a central component of our campaign.”


Eventful Demand is a viral service that has transformed the way that audiences interact with public figures and performers, empowering them to directly influence where events take place. Eventful’s viral tools make it easy for campaigns and supporters to spread the word by including links and widgets in blogs, MySpace pages, Facebook groups and other social networking sites.


I did a search for Champaign-Urbana. Sigh. No demand. Oh well, the site is new, after all.


NPR's Marketplace had a nice little story on Social Networking yesterday to a younger audience The reporter, Alana German, liked John Edwards' site the most with this comment:

John Edwards' page is my favorite. MySpace is all about being yourself. And in his pictures he's playing with his children on the beach and having lunch with volunteers during a clean-up after Hurricane Katrina.

I haven't been to MySpace in a couple of weeks. Maybe I'll check it out.

Here's a cool little tool that the Edwards campaign came up with for the Memorial Day weekend:



You can add your event if you choose.

The Tightrope

Last week, I was in Copenhagen, and I heard a speaker talk about what consumers are looking for from business libraries, but it seemed applicable to Edwards. She said that library users are wanting from libraries:



dissatisfied with the status quo
want to offer their own content
want a voice
want someone who is willing to be the change to promote change
want authenticity from librarians and leaders in general
want trust
want respect


And that in looking towards the future, each person on the tightrope takes baby steps first, looking down, but once they have the grasps down, they look ahead, and no longer look down as they reach for the future. That's Edwards. He took baby steps in the first election, but now he is confident and reaching towards the future. Not looking back, just moving forward.


I'm reminded of Elizabeth Edwards's comment in Des Moines last summer concerning healthcare for all, which was a window to the walk on the tightrope: "too many tomorrows have come and gone. We need universal health care."


She should know.


More buzz l8tr..

Labels: , , , , , , , , , ,

Friday, April 27, 2007

Future President Edwards


Photo courtesy of the NYT. Take a good look at who is in the center and looks the most presidential.

Transcript of the debate here.

Labels: , , , , ,